MONSANTO claims it will not be offering financial support to Kojonup farmer Michael Baxter in any legal action over the GM canola contamination case at Kojonup.
Despite early reports to the contrary, Monsanto said last week it would not financially support legal action over the case.
In December, Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) tests confirmed Mr Marsh had lost his organic accreditation to about 300 hectares of farmland due to GM contamination alleged to be from his neighbour's property.
Both Mr Marsh and his neighbour Michael Baxter hired lawyers and Mr Marsh will take legal action against his neighbour for future loss of income.
It was speculated Monsanto might become financially involved in the case because the bio-technical giant owned the patent for GM canola technology.
But speaking last week Monsanto's head of communications Keryn McLean said that wouldn't be the case.
Ms McLean said Monsanto representatives had been following the contamination case closely but wouldn't be actively participating in any legal action.
She said the multi-national company had no intention of taking legal action against a grower who had an unintended population of GM material on their land and there was no reason why it should consider taking action against Mr Marsh.
It was made clear that Monsanto had been in touch with Mr Marsh's neighbour, Mr Baxter on a regular basis but wouldn't contribute to the case at this time.
Organic farmer Mr Marsh said it was disappointing that dialogue surrounding the case had been kept very secret.
"It's just so hard for anyone to find out the truth about what's actually going on," he said.
"It just makes it very difficult because no one can see the full extent of what's happening."
Mr Marsh said he had finally receieved the State Government's full report determining the full extent of GM contamination on his property but said its contents remained confidential.
"That's another thing," he said.
"It's really frustrating because I believe it's in the public's best interest to see what is written in the report."
Mr Marsh had heard Monsanto withdrew its active support of Mr Baxter but believed there was still a grower fund set up to assist Mr Baxter's cause.
Controversy still surrounded whether or not there should be a re-thinking of the regulations surrounding the planting of GM crops in WA in order for GM and non-GM growers to co-exist.
But Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman stood firm on his belief that it wasn't within the State Government's role to take responsibility for co-existence.
The Australian organic certifier, NASAA said it also had no intention of backing down or lowering its zero-tolerance approach to GM material.
It would, however, agree to look at what needed to be done to prevent any kind of GM contamination occurring again.
Monsanto believed co-existence laws were already good enough and no further discussion on GM contamination was needed.
It's believed Monsanto had been in discussions with industry from the beginning of GM's introduction to WA and a full assessment was carried out earlier in the year.
Monsanto's non-involvement also raised questions about the Marsh and Baxter court case and whether or not Monsanto's gene patent had been breached.
Copyright © 2011. Fairfax Media.
