Organisations such as Greenpeace say the verdict confirms that the responsibility for the consequences of GE (genetic engineering) contamination rests with the company that releases GE crops.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing the rice, which was bred to be resistant to Bayer's Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, Louisiana. The variety eventually "contaminated" more than 30 percent of U.S. ricelands, said Don Downing, lawyer for the plaintiffs, at the start of the trial.

Reportedly, Bayer denied the testing program had been negligently managed.

However at the ruling of a federal jury, Bayer will award damages for losses incurred by farmers Kenneth Bell and Johnny Hunter to the tune of $1.96 million to Mr. Bell (who claims Bayer's negligence cost him more than $2.2 million) and $53,336 to Mr. Hunter who is no longer a rice farmer.

The farmers' request for a punitive award was rejected.

Despite this, Mr. Hunter described the outcome in a statement as a "huge victory" which gave the company "the wake-up call they deserved".

"Not only for Kenny and me, but for every farmer in America who was harmed by Bayer's LibertyLink rice contamination."

The case is expected to be the tip of the ice-berg. Farmers from Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi have filed more than 1,000 similar cases against Bayer since the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of the genetically modified LibertyLink rice were found in U.S. long-grain rice stocks.

Reportedly, according to a consolidated complaint filed by the farmers, rice futures plummeted within four days of the 2006 USDA announcement, costing U.S. growers about $150 million with exports also falling.

Greenpeace say a report prepared for Greenpeace International found the total costs incurred throughout the world as a result of the contamination are estimated to range from $741 million to $1.285 billion US dollars; and say all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops should be stopped before crops are irreversibly contaminated.

The case again raises concerns regarding segregation of GM crops - including GM Canola which was grown and harvested for the first time in small commercial quantities in NSW and Victoria in 2008-09.

Dr. Andrew Monk, Director, Biological Farmers of Australia, says that to date Australia has remained well placed in the risk management of contamination from GMO crops - "however this does not look likely to last that much longer with the repeal of moratoria on plantings of GMO crops in the past year.

"The irony in this situation is that those who talk about choice and about user pays policy appear not to be at all concerned about the prevention of choice (for non GMO contaminated crops and foods) nor about ensuring it actually is the user that pays the full costs of the use of such GMO varieties. This means that the organic industry will need to continue to be very vigilant - as it currently is - in preventing synthetic agrichemicals from entering the organic production chain. We are driven by what consumers are both demanding and expecting, and we can only hope that government regulators pay more attention to this than is currently the case."

Currently certified organic products remain one of few alternatives for concerned consumers who want a GM-free guarantee - under the Australian Organic Standard (which ACO operators are audited to) GM ingredients are prohibited.

www.bfa.com.au