Cornell Report - Industry Response

[Chris J. Durden]

>Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:41:23 -0500
 
>
>  This is difficult for someone without legal background to comprehend.
>Do we have to wait for our (common) assets to be damaged before we can sue
the offender for damages? Can we anticipate expected damage and sue for an
injunction not to damage? Are our (common) assets unprotected against
accidents generated by private enterprise? Under Napoleonic Law engineers
and geologists have been charged with the death of villagers drowned by the
collapse of a dam which the geologists had advised on and the engineers had
sited (Northern Italy). Under American law we have a different history of
corporate and professional liability. What will international law look like
in the case of the Canadian-US-Mexican-claimed monarch if it is adversely
affected by change in private agricultural practices?
>These questions are beyond my expertise. Someone who knows the law -
please pick this up!
>............Chris Durden
>
>
>At 09:53  26/05/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>Personally I think those upsetting the status quo (ie: the bio-ag
>>>commercial interests) should be required to pay for this research.
>>
>>>.........Chris Durden
>>
>>I would be interested in reading an elaboration of this view. As I
>>understand the situation, the bio-ag commercial interests have
>>no necessary obligation to upset the status quo, but if there
>>are doubts raised by other research that they disagree with
>>and there is no research to support their view, then perhaps 
>>there is some obligation. In the real world perhaps
>>obligations don't mean much from any point of view.
>>
>>john Grehan
>>
>>