A court case between organic growers and the developers of genetically modified canola has literally become a war of words.
Two Saskatchewan farmers are seeking to overturn a lower court decision denying them class certification in their bid to hold Monsanto Canada and Bayer CropScience Ltd. liable for alleged losses stemming from the discovery of GM canola in their organic crops.
In their document filed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, appellants Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin argue lower court judge Gene Ann Smith showed her bias by accepting “adventitious presence” as a more neutral term than “contamination” when describing the propensity of GM canola to end up in farmland where it is not wanted.
Read Also
Genesis Fertilizers seeks government funding
Genesis Fertilizers is actively seeking funding from government and a strategic partner. The company dispelled a rumour that DL E&C has abandoned the project.
They contend the term is far from neutral.
“Rather, it is lingo invented by the biotech industry to trivialize contamination complaints,” say the two Saskatchewan organic growers.
“Adopting the biotech industry’s definition for adventitious presence as negligible and unavoidable commingling is to prejudge the outcome of an action where it is alleged that there has been negligent and systemic contamination of the environment by GMOs.”
In its response, Bayer said adventitious presence is not lingo but a precise and widely used agricultural term that even made an appearance in the sworn testimony of two of the appellants’ expert witnesses, Debbie Miller and Wally Hamm.
In any event, justice Smith also used the word contamination that is preferred by the appellants at various points in her judgment, debunking any suggestion of bias in her use of language, said the Bayer document.
Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan said the term adventitious presence has been around forever in agriculture circles and is far more appropriate than the contamination alternative put forward by the organic growers.
“They obviously use inflammatory language because it contributes to their cause,” she said.
Rod Casali, associate professor at the Canada Institute of Linguistics at Trinity Western University, isn’t surprised that part of this court case has come down to a battle over language.
“It is really hard to find absolutely neutral terms when you’re dealing with anything that people have strong feelings about,” he said.
It is understandable why each faction has come up with its own term to describe what has transpired and wants the legal system to recognize that term.
“The use of the word really can be quite important. It can do a lot to sway opinion,” said Casali.
“That kind of power can in some cases translate into economic gain. People are doing this all the time. This is what happens with advertising.”
Casali felt uncomfortable commenting on the term adventitious presence because he had never heard it before, but he said contamination certainly has a negative connotation.
The appellants proposed using the word “infiltrate” as a less “value-laden” way to describe the spread of patented genes into farmers’ fields, but Casali can understand why Bayer and Monsanto do not see that as an acceptable compromise.
“To me infiltrate doesn’t seem more benign than contaminate. It seems to carry the additional component of intentionality.”
Terry Zakreski, the lawyer for Hoffman and Beaudoin, said at some point you have to call a spade a spade.
“Infiltrate means something that has invaded and that’s what has happened. I don’t think you can whitewash that aspect of it.”
