The Farmers Weekly of 20th May 2005 reported that only 10 % of the maize produced in South Africa was GMO maize.  90% was non GMO but could not be sold because there were no separate grain storage facilities in South Africa. The World Food Organisation which buys grain to feed the starving areas of the planet would not purchase our maize because it is contaminated with GMO maize  stored in the same silos  with non GMO maize.  The European Union and many other countries will not purchase GMO maize. The South African Breweries, Kellogs and Woolworths are three major South African based companies which will also not purchase GMO contaminated maize.

It would make sense for the government as a signatory of international agreements to control GMO products to insist on separate grain storage facilities.  The fact that the government has not yet done so does not excuse the owners of the grain storage facilities and the GMO producers from joint and several delictual liability.  A class action by non GMO farmers would be highly successful in our Courts. In South African law it would only be necessary to prove that the respondents ought to have foreseen the financial damages caused to the 90% non GMO farmers.
GMO farmers could also be held liable for the destruction of their neighbours'  heritage or landrace seed maize  caused by wind pollination for the simple reason that the GMO gene,  is permanent and would therefore render all future  crops unsaleable to the non GMO market.
 GMO farmers should be wary of signing agreements with patented GMO seed producers which excludes the seed company from liability for direct or consequential damages once the seeds have passed to the farmers.    It is doubtful that  such an exclusionary clause would have standing in our law because major seed producers have a specific duty of care.  Such a clause could, however, result in major litigation between the farmer and the seed company who would grandstand until the little farmer ran out of court costs.

Hans Lombard,  consultant to(sic) the Biotech Industry in South Africa states in the Farmers Weekly of 27 May 2005, and I quote:  "The facts are this Bt maize was marketed in 2000 as animal feed. It accidentally entered the human food supply"(end quote).   Who has a duty of care to prevent food not fit for human consumption from contaminating the human food supply?  Was this intentional, reckless or careless?    The US government found that  this  GMO animal feed  had contaminated the food samples taken.   This illustrates that the Biotech Industry in South Africa ought to have forseen that our non GMO  maize would be contaminated and rejected by discerning local and overseas  buyers.

I was pleased to read in a recent Farmers Weekly report  that the Minister of Environmental Affairs has formed a Biosafety committee to monitor GMO activities and South Africa's duty to comply with the relevant international agreements. The South African government was highly embarrassed when several tons of South African grown GMO soya seed  smuggled into Indonesia disguised as "Rice" was seized by Indonesian Police. Monsanto was fined for bribing a senior Indonesian official. (Chris Louw, FW February 2005).
Can we really trust an industry that adopts such dishonest strategies?

Trevor Wells,
Cape Town.