Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2009, 11:44 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 6
Default Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto (sort of long)

An interesting story which I unashamedly ripped from the SoilandHealth group



ISIS Report 06/04/09
Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto?
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whoOwnsLifeNotMo nsanto.php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whoOwnsLifeNotMo nsanto.php)


Percy Schmeiser is a real life hero who played David to Monsanto´s
Goliath, and like David, he won.
Sam Burcher

Percy and Louise Schmeiser in London


Governments approve Monsanto´s GM crops

Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise are third generation farmers from the
prairies of Western Canada in the province of Saskatchewan near the city of
Saskatoon. They feel really blessed not only that his grandparents moved
there, but by the fact that in Central Saskatchewan so many types of grain
crops can be grown; pulses, oil seeds, in what the locals call God´s
Country.

The Schmeisers, like hundreds of thousands of farmers all over the world,
were using their canola (oilseed rape) seed from year to year and
developing new varieties suitable for climatic soil conditions on the
prairies.
Percy had also been the Mayor of his town for over thirty years, a
member of
the provincial Parliament and an active member of agricultural committees
representing his province on new agricultural policy, law and
regulations for
the benefit of farmers.

In 1996, the Canadian Federal Government and the US Government gave
regulatory approval to four genetically modified (GM) crops: soya, corn
or maize,
cotton and canola. At the time not all GM crops in Canada were herbicide
tolerant except for Monsanto´s Roundup Ready canola and soya, both
resistant
to the company´s herbicide Roundup. The US Government had also approved Bt
cotton and Bt corn that has the added GM toxin from Bacillus thuringenisis
(Bt). The Canadian government were fully complicit in allowing Monsanto to
develop GM crops on Government test plots and research stations in return
for a royalty on every bushel of GM crops sold.


Monsanto versus farmer


In 1998, two years after the introduction of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in Canada, the Schmeisers received a lawsuit notice
from Monsanto
which said that they were growing Roundup Ready canola without a licence
from Monsanto and that this was a patent infringement. Monsanto had a
patent
on a gene to make GM canola resistant to the glyphosate herbicide in its
formulation Roundup. This came as a complete surprise to the Schmeisers who
immediately realised that all their research and development on canola over
the past fifty years had been contaminated by Monsanto´s GMOs. They felt
that they had a case against Monsanto for liability and the damages
possibly
caused to them, and that was the beginning of [1] Schmeiser's Battle for
the Seed (SiS 19). And 10 years on, the Schmeisers have been invited to
London to tell their full story [2].

The Schmeisers stood up to Monsanto´s claims of patent infringement in the
Federal Court with just one judge and no jury. The pre-trial took two
years to go to court in which Monsanto claimed that despite having no
knowledge
of Percy Schmeiser ever having obtained any GM seed, he must have used
their seed on his 1 030 acres of land because ninety-eight percent of the
land was GM contaminated. And, because the Schmeisers had contaminated
their
own seed supply with Monsanto seed, ownership of the Schmeisers seed supply
reverted to Monsanto under patent law.


Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled


The Court ruled after a two-and-half- week trial that it was the first
patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge´s
ruling and Percy Schmeiser´s name became famous overnight:

- It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener´s seed or
plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination,
pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed
transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under
patent law, they
becomes Monsanto´s property.

- The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it´s 1 percent, 2
percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to
Monsanto.

- It´s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.

The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their
neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between
them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers´ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto,
and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep
any profit from their canola crop in 1998.

The Schmeisers appealed against the ruling, and after another two years,
it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal judges even though they did
not
agree with all the trial judge´s statements. The Schmeisers believe that
the case should have been thrown out of Court and not upheld. After having
lost the two trials costing them $300 000 of their own money, Percy took
the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was warned that there was
only a
very small chance that the case would be heard; but was granted a second
leave of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Schmeiser raised important questions during the Supreme Court Appeal


The Appeal was good news for the Schmeisers, but in the meantime Monsanto
had brought another lawsuit against them for $1million in legal costs,
fines and punitive damages. Monsanto said that the Schmeisers were
recalcitrant and that they wanted a million dollars from them. For good
measure,
Monsanto brought a third lawsuit against the Schmeisers to seize their
farmland,
farm equipment and house, in an effort to stop them mortgaging their
assets to pay their legal bill.

Percy Schmeiser effectively raised several important questions at the
Supreme Court Appeal:

1. Can living organisms, seeds, plants, genes, and human organs be owned
and protected by corporate patents on intellectual property?
2. Can genetically modified traits invade and become noxious weeds that
then become resistant to weed killers and become superweeds? (The answer
was
obviously yes, as these are now all over Western Canada and almost the rest
of Canada, see below.)
3. Can the farmers´ rights to grow conventional or organic crops be
protected, especially organic crops?
4. Can farmers keep their ancient right to save their own seeds and
develop them further if they so desire?
5. Who owns life? Has anyone, either an individual or a corporation, the
right to put a patent on a higher life form?

On the important issue of "Who owns life?" the Supreme Court ruled in
2004 that "Monsanto´s patent on a gene is valid and wherever that gene
arrives in any higher life form they own or control that higher life
form." That
was considered to be a major victory for Monsanto at the time, but is a
decision that has come home to roost in the form of corporate liability for
GMOs. Percy explained that if a corporation own and control a higher life
form and they put it into the environment where everyone knows it cannot be
controlled or contained and co-existence is impossible then the corporation
should be liable for the damages done to an organic farmer or a
conventional
farmer, as well as for the negative impacts on biodiversity.

Despite strong recommendations by the Supreme Court for the Parliament of
Canada to bring in new laws and regulations on patents on life and the
rights of farmers to use their seed from year to year these issues have
yet to
be addressed to date. In the US, Monsanto has filed lawsuits against at
least ninety farmers (see [3] Monsanto versus Farmers, SiS 26).
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ MonsantovsFarmer s.php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ MonsantovsFarmer s.php)


Monsanto´s contamination no benefit to farmers, the Supreme Court ruled


In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of patent infringement
the Schmeisers owed no money to Monsanto because they did not benefit by
being contaminated by the GM genes. Furthermore, they had not used
Monsanto´s
patent because they had not sprayed the Roundup herbicide on their canola
crops. However, both parties had to pay their own legal bills. The
Schmeisers legal bill was over $400 000 and Monsanto´s was over $2 million.

In essence, Monsanto had used Percy Schmeiser as a test case to see how
far they could exercise intellectual property rights (IPR) over farmers´
rights. "At one point, Monsanto had nineteen lawyers in court, I had
one. Talk
about intimidation," Percy said.

No longer able to grow canola in their fields for fear of infringing
Monsanto´s patent, The Schmeisers began research into yellow mustard and
started
cultivating 50 acres of land in preparation for planting. In the autumn of
2005, they noticed canola plants growing despite not having been seeded in
those fields for many years. They brought in witnesses and tested the
plants by spraying Monsanto´s Roundup herbicide on the plants. Monsanto
claim
that any green plant that is sprayed with Roundup that does not die must
contain their patented gene. When the Schmeisers plants did not die they
realised that Monsanto´s canola was in their fields again.

The Schmeisers contacted Monsanto and asked them to remove the canola
plants from their property. Monsanto took samples of the plants that
confirmed
they were their patented variety and two days later Louise Schmeiser
received a fax from Monsanto containing a signed release statement which
was
blackened out in parts. Louise refused to sign it and insisted that
Monsanto
send her the unexpurgated document. Monsanto sent what was essentially a
gagging order on the Schmeisers from ever telling anyone, neighbours,
and the
press about the terms of settlement, or ever taking Monsanto to court
again for the rest of their lives no matter how much Monsanto contaminated
their fifty acre parcel of land with GM canola.


Victory for Schmeisers and farmers at last


There was no way that the Schmeisers were ever going to sign a statement
like that and give up their freedom to a corporation. Monsanto said that if
they refused to sign then they would not remove the plants. The argument
raged backed and forth; the Schmeisers said they will remove the plants
themselves and Monsanto wrote back saying we wish to remind you that the
plants
that are on your field are our property and you are not allowed to do with
those plants what you want. The Schmeisers said get your property off our
property, you´re trespassing! Monsanto said only if you sign the release
form.

The Schmeisers wanted the plants off their land before the pods ripened
and the seeds were dispersed into the field. They hired the neighbours to
help remove the plants and notified Monsanto about what had been done and M
onsanto sent another fax saying that you can´t do what you want with those
plants. A bill was eventually sent to Monsanto by the Schmeisers for
$640 to
pay for the neighbours help to clear the field. Monsanto refused to pay the
bill unless Percy signed the release statement. This went on for about a
year so the Schmeisers made a decision to go back to Court amid media
reports about the new dispute. The judge in the small claims Court agreed
with the Schmeisers and sent Monsanto a summons. Percy said, "We then had a
billion dollar Corporation in Court on a $640 bill and you can imagine the
publicity that got in Canada."

In March 2008, the case went to trial and when the judge came into the
Court room Monsanto got up with a cheque in hand to pay the $640 plus $20
costs. "I´ll never forget that $20 costs!" Percy laughed. "It was a great
victory, not only for ourselves, but for farmers all over the world because
it has set a precedent where a corporation has accepted liability for
contamination and clean up costs", he said. Percy Schmeiser had become
the first
farmer in history to successfully counter-sue Monsanto for liability over
damages done to his seeds and crops by Monsanto´s GM crops


GM in Canada - lessons learnt


Thirteen years ago when GM soya and rapeseed was introduced in Canada (and
in the US) the Corporations and Government told farmers that GM would
increase yields, be more nutritious, use less chemicals, and feed a hungry
world. Now we will always have a sustainable agriculture, they claimed. The
Canadian Department of Agriculture figures states canola yields have
decreased at least ten percent and soya at least fifteen percent [4],
but worst of
all, farmers are using three to five times more chemicals because of the GM
superweeds that have developed. The reality is that the nutritional
content of all crops are down fifty percent of what they were before
GMOs were
introduced and now we have less yields and more chemicals used, exactly the
opposite of what Monsanto promised.

Percy Schmeiser said, "Once you introduce GMOs, believe me the days of
organic farmers are over, the days of the conventional farmer are over,
it all
becomes GMOs in a matter of a few years." In addition, he said, there is
no such thing as containment, you cannot contain pollen flow. It doesn´t
matter if contamination is by seeds blowing in the wind, or by bees, or by
farmers transporting their seeds to market, or so on. Ultimately, farmers,
growers and consumers will no longer have a choice because despite Monsanto´
s promise that farmers will have choice, they won´t because it´s
absolutely impossible for organic and conventional farming to co-exist
with GM
crops.


Mountains of contaminated produce that cannot be exported


Canadian organic farmers can no longer grow canola and soya crops
organically. The seed stocks of those two crops are now totally
contaminated by
GMOs, which cross- pollinate into other market garden crops from the
brassica
family. Percy describes the devastating effect GMOs have had on Canada´s
markets, as a nation reliant on exporting eighty percent of what it
produces.
The markets for rapeseed have shrunk to primarily exporting to Mexico,
the US and Japan, Canada is now sitting on a mountain of canola, not one
bushel can be exported to the EU. Furthermore, Canada´s honey markets
throughout the world have been lost because of GM contamination.

Schmeiser is also concerned about a new wave of GM crops in Canada called "
pharma-plants". There are six major types of drugs now being produced by
GM plants, including prescription vaccines, industrial enzymes, blood
thinners, blood clotting proteins, growth hormones and contraceptives,
all known
to be much more dangerous than conventional drugs (see [5] Biologicals´,
Wonder Drugs with Problems
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ biologicalsWonde rDrugsWithProble ms.php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ biologicalsWonde rDrugsWithProble ms.php) ,
SiS 42) What if
somebody has had major surgery and then eats food contaminated with genes
from a plant manufactured to be a blood thinner? Or what about a pregnant
woman who eats food contaminated by genes from a plant that is manufactured
as a contraceptive? These are just some of the worrying implications of
pharma-plants, along with containment and co-existence.


Superweeds now ubiquitous in Canada, requiring supertoxic herbicides


Superweeds have evolved from conventional canola plants that have taken on
the genes from three or four companies selling GM canola that has
cross-pollinated and ended up in one plant. It had become established in
Canada by
1996 (so quickly that horizontal gene transfer was suspected as having been
involved, see [6] What Lurks Behind Triple Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed
Rape? _http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whatlurk. php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whatlurk. php) , ISIS Report). Percy warns
that superweeds are ubiquitous
throughout Canada in wheat fields, barley fields, cemeteries, university
grounds,
towns, and golf courses. He said that all these people that never even grew
GM canola have this new expense of trying to control it, and this is
responsible for the massive increase in the use of chemicals to control the
superweeds.

One third of Canada´s insecticides, herbicides and pesticides are used in
Saskatchewan, which has the highest rate of breast cancer and prostate
cancer in Canada. "We´re killing ourselves with the chemicals we are using
and the chemicals are more powerful and more toxic than ever before," Percy
says. He warns that Roundup herbicide is now four times stronger than it
was in 1996. Roundup is bad enough as new research reveals (see [7]
Death by
Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ DMPGR.php_ (http://www.i- sis.org.uk/
DMPGR.php) ,
SiS 42); the new type "24D", contains 70 percent Agent Orange, and is
being used on the prairies to combat superweeds. The adverse health
effect of
Agent Orange in Vietnam is common knowledge and could explain the major
health problems, environment damage and loss of biodiversity in Canada.


Monsanto´s culture of fear


Monsanto is perpetrating a culture of fear and intimidation in Canada in
an effort to gain control of the seed supply, and ultimately the food
supply. It was not easy to stand up to Monsanto. Percy said, "They tried
everything to break us down mentally and financially." His main fear was
the harm
that they would do to his wife and family. Monsanto employees would sit in
the road in their vehicles watching us all day long when we were working in
our field, he said. They would sit in the driveway for hours at a time
watching Louise Schmeiser when she was working in the garden and then
phone her
and say "You better watch it; we´re going to get you." Monsanto would
then phone their neighbours and say if you support Percy and Louise
Schmeiser
we´re going to come after you and do the same to you as we´re doing to
them. Monsanto offered $20 000 worth of chemicals to the Schmeisers´
neighbours if they would say something negative about them in Court.

Percy warns farmers about Monsanto´s "Inform on your neighbour" policy
for a free gift such as a leather jacket or chemicals. He said when the
"gene
police" arrive on contaminated farm land threatening the farmer and his
wife with a court case, what do you think goes through a farmers´ mind? You
have a suspicion about your neighbours; it breaks down the social fabric of
rural society, farmers´ relationships, farmers not trusting one another,
farmers scared to talk to each other about what they are seeding. We don´t
know how many thousands of farmers they have done that to. But by 2004 at
least 30,000 farmers were paying royalties to Monsanto in Canada [8]. As a
former politician, Percy thinks this is the worst thing that has happened
with the introduction of GM crops, a whole new culture of fear that
Monsanto
has been able to establish on the prairies of North America and Canada.

If Monsanto can´t find the farmer at home they go to the municipality
office and get the farmers address and extortion letters follow. Percy has
collected a lot of letters that farmers have given to him that say: "We
have
reason to believe that you might be growing Monsanto´s GM rapeseed without
a licence. We estimate that you have so many acres. In lieu of us not
sending you to court send us $100 000 dollars or $200 000 dollars in two
weeks
time and we may or may not send you to court." Can you imagine the fear of
a farm family when they receive this letter from a billion dollar
Corporation? The letter ends, "You´re not allowed to show this letter to
anyone
or we will fine you." One farmer´s wife sent Percy a letter from Monsanto
because she was at her wits end. Her husband had four heart attacks and she
pleaded with them to put her in jail. Monsanto replied, "We don´t want
to put you in jail lady, sell your farm and we´ll let you go for half the
money." This behaviour is ruthless and if Monsanto can victimise farmers in
First World countries such as Canada and America, it is a given that they
will do this in many countries all over the world.


No new GM crops for Canada


But the Schmeisers´ struggles have brought a ray of hope.

In Canada food is not labelled, and campaigners have protested to find out
what´s in their food by demanding labelling. The National Farmers Union
has warned farmers not to buy Monsanto´s GM seeds because of their
aggressive attitude. The Government has been unsuccessful in introducing
any new GM
crops such as wheat, rice, flax, and alfalfa because there was such an
uproar by the people who have seen the damage and don´t want any more GM
crops. Schmeiser said, "If we´re trying to stop them in the US and
especially
Canada, why would you want to introduce them in the UK and Europe?" He
believes that now the Corporations have lost the ability to introduce
any more
GMOs in Canada they have turned their attention to other countries in the
world. He compared this dominant strategy with the sale of agricultural
pesticides and chemicals that have been exported wholesale to Africa and
Asia
once the North American markets were saturated.

Percy said we do not know if you can ever recall out of the environment a
life form that you put into it. And in relation to GMOs, what are we
leaving for the future? We are at a fork in the road. If you go the GM way,
this is what will happen; if you go down the other fork, you will maintain
good food, safe food, and your environment. "I don´t think any of us
want to
leave to the future generations our environment, our soil, our water, our
food, and our air full of poisons, none of us want to leave that," he
concluded. Percy has five children, fifteen grandchildren and two great
grandchildren and that is why the Schmeisers have taken such a strong stand
because they want to leave a legacy of safe food, water, air and soil.

He leaves us with a final question: "What will happen if you introduce GM
crops in the UK?" We still have the chance to make the right decision


(end of copy)
Chas
  #2   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2009, 12:33 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto (sort of long)

I couldn't find any URLs that work. The report looks right but it sure
would be good to have the source.

In article ,
chasndeb wrote:

An interesting story which I unashamedly ripped from the SoilandHealth group



ISIS Report 06/04/09
Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto?
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whoOwnsLifeNotMo nsanto.php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whoOwnsLifeNotMo nsanto.php)


Percy Schmeiser is a real life hero who played David to Monsanto´s
Goliath, and like David, he won.
Sam Burcher

Percy and Louise Schmeiser in London


Governments approve Monsanto´s GM crops

Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise are third generation farmers from the
prairies of Western Canada in the province of Saskatchewan near the city of
Saskatoon. They feel really blessed not only that his grandparents moved
there, but by the fact that in Central Saskatchewan so many types of grain
crops can be grown; pulses, oil seeds, in what the locals call God´s
Country.

The Schmeisers, like hundreds of thousands of farmers all over the world,
were using their canola (oilseed rape) seed from year to year and
developing new varieties suitable for climatic soil conditions on the
prairies.
Percy had also been the Mayor of his town for over thirty years, a
member of
the provincial Parliament and an active member of agricultural committees
representing his province on new agricultural policy, law and
regulations for
the benefit of farmers.

In 1996, the Canadian Federal Government and the US Government gave
regulatory approval to four genetically modified (GM) crops: soya, corn
or maize,
cotton and canola. At the time not all GM crops in Canada were herbicide
tolerant except for Monsanto´s Roundup Ready canola and soya, both
resistant
to the company´s herbicide Roundup. The US Government had also approved Bt
cotton and Bt corn that has the added GM toxin from Bacillus thuringenisis
(Bt). The Canadian government were fully complicit in allowing Monsanto to
develop GM crops on Government test plots and research stations in return
for a royalty on every bushel of GM crops sold.


Monsanto versus farmer


In 1998, two years after the introduction of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in Canada, the Schmeisers received a lawsuit notice
from Monsanto
which said that they were growing Roundup Ready canola without a licence
from Monsanto and that this was a patent infringement. Monsanto had a
patent
on a gene to make GM canola resistant to the glyphosate herbicide in its
formulation Roundup. This came as a complete surprise to the Schmeisers who
immediately realised that all their research and development on canola over
the past fifty years had been contaminated by Monsanto´s GMOs. They felt
that they had a case against Monsanto for liability and the damages
possibly
caused to them, and that was the beginning of [1] Schmeiser's Battle for
the Seed (SiS 19). And 10 years on, the Schmeisers have been invited to
London to tell their full story [2].

The Schmeisers stood up to Monsanto´s claims of patent infringement in the
Federal Court with just one judge and no jury. The pre-trial took two
years to go to court in which Monsanto claimed that despite having no
knowledge
of Percy Schmeiser ever having obtained any GM seed, he must have used
their seed on his 1 030 acres of land because ninety-eight percent of the
land was GM contaminated. And, because the Schmeisers had contaminated
their
own seed supply with Monsanto seed, ownership of the Schmeisers seed supply
reverted to Monsanto under patent law.


Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled


The Court ruled after a two-and-half- week trial that it was the first
patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge´s
ruling and Percy Schmeiser´s name became famous overnight:

- It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener´s seed or
plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination,
pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed
transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under
patent law, they
becomes Monsanto´s property.

- The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it´s 1 percent, 2
percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to
Monsanto.

- It´s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.

The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their
neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between
them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers´ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto,
and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep
any profit from their canola crop in 1998.

The Schmeisers appealed against the ruling, and after another two years,
it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal judges even though they did
not
agree with all the trial judge´s statements. The Schmeisers believe that
the case should have been thrown out of Court and not upheld. After having
lost the two trials costing them $300 000 of their own money, Percy took
the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was warned that there was
only a
very small chance that the case would be heard; but was granted a second
leave of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Schmeiser raised important questions during the Supreme Court Appeal


The Appeal was good news for the Schmeisers, but in the meantime Monsanto
had brought another lawsuit against them for $1million in legal costs,
fines and punitive damages. Monsanto said that the Schmeisers were
recalcitrant and that they wanted a million dollars from them. For good
measure,
Monsanto brought a third lawsuit against the Schmeisers to seize their
farmland,
farm equipment and house, in an effort to stop them mortgaging their
assets to pay their legal bill.

Percy Schmeiser effectively raised several important questions at the
Supreme Court Appeal:

1. Can living organisms, seeds, plants, genes, and human organs be owned
and protected by corporate patents on intellectual property?
2. Can genetically modified traits invade and become noxious weeds that
then become resistant to weed killers and become superweeds? (The answer
was
obviously yes, as these are now all over Western Canada and almost the rest
of Canada, see below.)
3. Can the farmers´ rights to grow conventional or organic crops be
protected, especially organic crops?
4. Can farmers keep their ancient right to save their own seeds and
develop them further if they so desire?
5. Who owns life? Has anyone, either an individual or a corporation, the
right to put a patent on a higher life form?

On the important issue of "Who owns life?" the Supreme Court ruled in
2004 that "Monsanto´s patent on a gene is valid and wherever that gene
arrives in any higher life form they own or control that higher life
form." That
was considered to be a major victory for Monsanto at the time, but is a
decision that has come home to roost in the form of corporate liability for
GMOs. Percy explained that if a corporation own and control a higher life
form and they put it into the environment where everyone knows it cannot be
controlled or contained and co-existence is impossible then the corporation
should be liable for the damages done to an organic farmer or a
conventional
farmer, as well as for the negative impacts on biodiversity.

Despite strong recommendations by the Supreme Court for the Parliament of
Canada to bring in new laws and regulations on patents on life and the
rights of farmers to use their seed from year to year these issues have
yet to
be addressed to date. In the US, Monsanto has filed lawsuits against at
least ninety farmers (see [3] Monsanto versus Farmers, SiS 26).
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ MonsantovsFarmer s.php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ MonsantovsFarmer s.php)


Monsanto´s contamination no benefit to farmers, the Supreme Court ruled


In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of patent infringement
the Schmeisers owed no money to Monsanto because they did not benefit by
being contaminated by the GM genes. Furthermore, they had not used
Monsanto´s
patent because they had not sprayed the Roundup herbicide on their canola
crops. However, both parties had to pay their own legal bills. The
Schmeisers legal bill was over $400 000 and Monsanto´s was over $2 million.

In essence, Monsanto had used Percy Schmeiser as a test case to see how
far they could exercise intellectual property rights (IPR) over farmers´
rights. "At one point, Monsanto had nineteen lawyers in court, I had
one. Talk
about intimidation," Percy said.

No longer able to grow canola in their fields for fear of infringing
Monsanto´s patent, The Schmeisers began research into yellow mustard and
started
cultivating 50 acres of land in preparation for planting. In the autumn of
2005, they noticed canola plants growing despite not having been seeded in
those fields for many years. They brought in witnesses and tested the
plants by spraying Monsanto´s Roundup herbicide on the plants. Monsanto
claim
that any green plant that is sprayed with Roundup that does not die must
contain their patented gene. When the Schmeisers plants did not die they
realised that Monsanto´s canola was in their fields again.

The Schmeisers contacted Monsanto and asked them to remove the canola
plants from their property. Monsanto took samples of the plants that
confirmed
they were their patented variety and two days later Louise Schmeiser
received a fax from Monsanto containing a signed release statement which
was
blackened out in parts. Louise refused to sign it and insisted that
Monsanto
send her the unexpurgated document. Monsanto sent what was essentially a
gagging order on the Schmeisers from ever telling anyone, neighbours,
and the
press about the terms of settlement, or ever taking Monsanto to court
again for the rest of their lives no matter how much Monsanto contaminated
their fifty acre parcel of land with GM canola.


Victory for Schmeisers and farmers at last


There was no way that the Schmeisers were ever going to sign a statement
like that and give up their freedom to a corporation. Monsanto said that if
they refused to sign then they would not remove the plants. The argument
raged backed and forth; the Schmeisers said they will remove the plants
themselves and Monsanto wrote back saying we wish to remind you that the
plants
that are on your field are our property and you are not allowed to do with
those plants what you want. The Schmeisers said get your property off our
property, you´re trespassing! Monsanto said only if you sign the release
form.

The Schmeisers wanted the plants off their land before the pods ripened
and the seeds were dispersed into the field. They hired the neighbours to
help remove the plants and notified Monsanto about what had been done and M
onsanto sent another fax saying that you can´t do what you want with those
plants. A bill was eventually sent to Monsanto by the Schmeisers for
$640 to
pay for the neighbours help to clear the field. Monsanto refused to pay the
bill unless Percy signed the release statement. This went on for about a
year so the Schmeisers made a decision to go back to Court amid media
reports about the new dispute. The judge in the small claims Court agreed
with the Schmeisers and sent Monsanto a summons. Percy said, "We then had a
billion dollar Corporation in Court on a $640 bill and you can imagine the
publicity that got in Canada."

In March 2008, the case went to trial and when the judge came into the
Court room Monsanto got up with a cheque in hand to pay the $640 plus $20
costs. "I´ll never forget that $20 costs!" Percy laughed. "It was a great
victory, not only for ourselves, but for farmers all over the world because
it has set a precedent where a corporation has accepted liability for
contamination and clean up costs", he said. Percy Schmeiser had become
the first
farmer in history to successfully counter-sue Monsanto for liability over
damages done to his seeds and crops by Monsanto´s GM crops


GM in Canada - lessons learnt


Thirteen years ago when GM soya and rapeseed was introduced in Canada (and
in the US) the Corporations and Government told farmers that GM would
increase yields, be more nutritious, use less chemicals, and feed a hungry
world. Now we will always have a sustainable agriculture, they claimed. The
Canadian Department of Agriculture figures states canola yields have
decreased at least ten percent and soya at least fifteen percent [4],
but worst of
all, farmers are using three to five times more chemicals because of the GM
superweeds that have developed. The reality is that the nutritional
content of all crops are down fifty percent of what they were before
GMOs were
introduced and now we have less yields and more chemicals used, exactly the
opposite of what Monsanto promised.

Percy Schmeiser said, "Once you introduce GMOs, believe me the days of
organic farmers are over, the days of the conventional farmer are over,
it all
becomes GMOs in a matter of a few years." In addition, he said, there is
no such thing as containment, you cannot contain pollen flow. It doesn´t
matter if contamination is by seeds blowing in the wind, or by bees, or by
farmers transporting their seeds to market, or so on. Ultimately, farmers,
growers and consumers will no longer have a choice because despite Monsanto´
s promise that farmers will have choice, they won´t because it´s
absolutely impossible for organic and conventional farming to co-exist
with GM
crops.


Mountains of contaminated produce that cannot be exported


Canadian organic farmers can no longer grow canola and soya crops
organically. The seed stocks of those two crops are now totally
contaminated by
GMOs, which cross- pollinate into other market garden crops from the
brassica
family. Percy describes the devastating effect GMOs have had on Canada´s
markets, as a nation reliant on exporting eighty percent of what it
produces.
The markets for rapeseed have shrunk to primarily exporting to Mexico,
the US and Japan, Canada is now sitting on a mountain of canola, not one
bushel can be exported to the EU. Furthermore, Canada´s honey markets
throughout the world have been lost because of GM contamination.

Schmeiser is also concerned about a new wave of GM crops in Canada called "
pharma-plants". There are six major types of drugs now being produced by
GM plants, including prescription vaccines, industrial enzymes, blood
thinners, blood clotting proteins, growth hormones and contraceptives,
all known
to be much more dangerous than conventional drugs (see [5] Biologicals´,
Wonder Drugs with Problems
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ biologicalsWonde rDrugsWithProble ms.php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ biologicalsWonde rDrugsWithProble ms.php) ,
SiS 42) What if
somebody has had major surgery and then eats food contaminated with genes
from a plant manufactured to be a blood thinner? Or what about a pregnant
woman who eats food contaminated by genes from a plant that is manufactured
as a contraceptive? These are just some of the worrying implications of
pharma-plants, along with containment and co-existence.


Superweeds now ubiquitous in Canada, requiring supertoxic herbicides


Superweeds have evolved from conventional canola plants that have taken on
the genes from three or four companies selling GM canola that has
cross-pollinated and ended up in one plant. It had become established in
Canada by
1996 (so quickly that horizontal gene transfer was suspected as having been
involved, see [6] What Lurks Behind Triple Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed
Rape? _http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whatlurk. php_
(http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ whatlurk. php) , ISIS Report). Percy warns
that superweeds are ubiquitous
throughout Canada in wheat fields, barley fields, cemeteries, university
grounds,
towns, and golf courses. He said that all these people that never even grew
GM canola have this new expense of trying to control it, and this is
responsible for the massive increase in the use of chemicals to control the
superweeds.

One third of Canada´s insecticides, herbicides and pesticides are used in
Saskatchewan, which has the highest rate of breast cancer and prostate
cancer in Canada. "We´re killing ourselves with the chemicals we are using
and the chemicals are more powerful and more toxic than ever before," Percy
says. He warns that Roundup herbicide is now four times stronger than it
was in 1996. Roundup is bad enough as new research reveals (see [7]
Death by
Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup
_http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ DMPGR.php_ (http://www.i- sis.org.uk/
DMPGR.php) ,
SiS 42); the new type "24D", contains 70 percent Agent Orange, and is
being used on the prairies to combat superweeds. The adverse health
effect of
Agent Orange in Vietnam is common knowledge and could explain the major
health problems, environment damage and loss of biodiversity in Canada.


Monsanto´s culture of fear


Monsanto is perpetrating a culture of fear and intimidation in Canada in
an effort to gain control of the seed supply, and ultimately the food
supply. It was not easy to stand up to Monsanto. Percy said, "They tried
everything to break us down mentally and financially." His main fear was
the harm
that they would do to his wife and family. Monsanto employees would sit in
the road in their vehicles watching us all day long when we were working in
our field, he said. They would sit in the driveway for hours at a time
watching Louise Schmeiser when she was working in the garden and then
phone her
and say "You better watch it; we´re going to get you." Monsanto would
then phone their neighbours and say if you support Percy and Louise
Schmeiser
we´re going to come after you and do the same to you as we´re doing to
them. Monsanto offered $20 000 worth of chemicals to the Schmeisers´
neighbours if they would say something negative about them in Court.

Percy warns farmers about Monsanto´s "Inform on your neighbour" policy
for a free gift such as a leather jacket or chemicals. He said when the
"gene
police" arrive on contaminated farm land threatening the farmer and his
wife with a court case, what do you think goes through a farmers´ mind? You
have a suspicion about your neighbours; it breaks down the social fabric of
rural society, farmers´ relationships, farmers not trusting one another,
farmers scared to talk to each other about what they are seeding. We don´t
know how many thousands of farmers they have done that to. But by 2004 at
least 30,000 farmers were paying royalties to Monsanto in Canada [8]. As a
former politician, Percy thinks this is the worst thing that has happened
with the introduction of GM crops, a whole new culture of fear that
Monsanto
has been able to establish on the prairies of North America and Canada.

If Monsanto can´t find the farmer at home they go to the municipality
office and get the farmers address and extortion letters follow. Percy has
collected a lot of letters that farmers have given to him that say: "We
have
reason to believe that you might be growing Monsanto´s GM rapeseed without
a licence. We estimate that you have so many acres. In lieu of us not
sending you to court send us $100 000 dollars or $200 000 dollars in two
weeks
time and we may or may not send you to court." Can you imagine the fear of
a farm family when they receive this letter from a billion dollar
Corporation? The letter ends, "You´re not allowed to show this letter to
anyone
or we will fine you." One farmer´s wife sent Percy a letter from Monsanto
because she was at her wits end. Her husband had four heart attacks and she
pleaded with them to put her in jail. Monsanto replied, "We don´t want
to put you in jail lady, sell your farm and we´ll let you go for half the
money." This behaviour is ruthless and if Monsanto can victimise farmers in
First World countries such as Canada and America, it is a given that they
will do this in many countries all over the world.


No new GM crops for Canada


But the Schmeisers´ struggles have brought a ray of hope.

In Canada food is not labelled, and campaigners have protested to find out
what´s in their food by demanding labelling. The National Farmers Union
has warned farmers not to buy Monsanto´s GM seeds because of their
aggressive attitude. The Government has been unsuccessful in introducing
any new GM
crops such as wheat, rice, flax, and alfalfa because there was such an
uproar by the people who have seen the damage and don´t want any more GM
crops. Schmeiser said, "If we´re trying to stop them in the US and
especially
Canada, why would you want to introduce them in the UK and Europe?" He
believes that now the Corporations have lost the ability to introduce
any more
GMOs in Canada they have turned their attention to other countries in the
world. He compared this dominant strategy with the sale of agricultural
pesticides and chemicals that have been exported wholesale to Africa and
Asia
once the North American markets were saturated.

Percy said we do not know if you can ever recall out of the environment a
life form that you put into it. And in relation to GMOs, what are we
leaving for the future? We are at a fork in the road. If you go the GM way,
this is what will happen; if you go down the other fork, you will maintain
good food, safe food, and your environment. "I don´t think any of us
want to
leave to the future generations our environment, our soil, our water, our
food, and our air full of poisons, none of us want to leave that," he
concluded. Percy has five children, fifteen grandchildren and two great
grandchildren and that is why the Schmeisers have taken such a strong stand
because they want to leave a legacy of safe food, water, air and soil.

He leaves us with a final question: "What will happen if you introduce GM
crops in the UK?" We still have the chance to make the right decision


(end of copy)
Chas

--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
  #3   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2009, 01:18 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto (sort of long)

In article , Charlie wrote:

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:33:33 -0700, Billy
wrote:

I couldn't find any URLs that work. The report looks right but it sure
would be good to have the source.


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/whoOwnsLifeNotMonsanto.php


Thank ye kindly bro.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
  #4   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2009, 03:13 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 15
Default Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto (sort of long)

I just don't understand how someone can ruin your seed that took 50 years to
create not be responsible for ruining it. They should sue for the pollution
of the seed.
I guess they need someone with a lot of money to back them, like a bill
gates or something. That story is scary.
All farmers should get together and file a class action suit.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to determine who owns a fence? Jon Rouse United Kingdom 1 20-04-2012 05:25 AM
Easy to see, Expat owns John Smith and John Smith is ExpatsPuppet on a String! hahahaha ..... Dance Johnny boy.. dance you fool!John Smith the puppet on a string John Smith[_5_] Ponds 0 07-09-2008 05:42 PM
Easy to see, Expat owns John Smith and John Smith is ExpatsPuppet on a String! John Smith[_5_] Ponds 0 07-09-2008 01:25 AM
Easy to see, Expat owns John Smith and John Smith is Expats Puppeton a String! John Smith[_5_] Ponds 0 06-09-2008 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017