Scientists Under Attack Part 2

[bodge]

Excerpt from Macleans Magazine May 17, 1999. Article by Mark Nichols

"For 40 years, Percy Schmeiser has grown canola on his farm near Bruno, Sask., about 80 km east of Saskatoon, usually sowing each crop of the oil-rich plants with seeds saved from the previous harvest. And he has never, says Schmeiser, purchased seed from the St. Louis, Mo.-based agricultural and biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. Even so, he says that more than 320 hectares of his land is now "contaminated" by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola, a man made variety produced by a controversial process known as genetic engineering. And, like hundreds of other North American farmer, Schmeiser has felt the sting of Monsanto's long legal arm: last August the company took the 68-year-old farmer to court, claiming he illegally planted the firm's canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege. Unlike scores of similarly accused North American farmers who have reached out-of-court settlements with Monsanto, Schmeiser fought back. He claims Monsanto investigators trespassed on his land -- and that company seed could easily have blown on to his soil from passing canola-laden trucks. "I never put those plants on my land," says Schmeiser. "The question is, where do Monsanto's rights end and mine begin?"

The landmark case, that went before the Federal Court of Canada, has attracted international attention because it could help determine how much control a handful of powerful biotech companies can exert over farmers.

Excerpt from August 19, 1999 Western Producer article by Adrian Ewins

"The high profile legal battle between Monsanto and a Saskatchewan farmer will go to trial in Saskatoon next year.

The two sides will square off in federal court on June 5, 2000 to argue the company's lawsuit alleging that Percy Schmeiser grew Roundup Ready canola without a license.

The trial date was set at the end of an eventful week that has brought the issue of seed patenting to national attention by pitting a United States-based multinational corporation against a lone farmer from Bruno, Sask.

"The case found its way into the courts in August 1998, when Monsanto filed a statement of claim alleging Schmeiser illegally bought Roundup Ready seed from local growers in order to plant his 1997 crop, then retained some of that year's seed to plant in 1998.

Schmeiser said he planted his 1997 crop with seed saved from 1996, and insists that any Roundup Ready growing on his land was spread by wind or by grain trucks travelling on roads adjacent to his fields.

In the statement of claim, Schmeiser says Monsanto has libeled him by publicly accusing him of committing illegal acts, trespassing on his land in order to obtain seed samples and improperly obtaining samples of his seed from a local seed plant.

The statement also accuses Monsanto of "callous disregard" for the environment by introducing Roundup Ready into the area without proper controls, and of contaminating crops grown by Schmeiser."

On Aug. 10, 1999 mediation talks to settle the dispute without going to trial ended in failure.

The next day, Schmeiser launched a $10 million lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of a variety of wrongs, including libel, trespass and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready."

"Schmeiser's lawsuit against Monsanto won't be dealt with until the original lawsuit has been resolved. "We want to have the patent infringement hearings run their course, then we'll pursue this," said Schmeiser's lawyer Terry Zakreski."

The Trial was heard June 5-20, 2000 in Federal Court in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

The Canadian federal court hearing lasted three weeks before a judge in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. At trial, Monsanto presented evidence from two dozen witnesses and samplers that Schmeiser's eight fields all were more than 90% Roundup Ready, indicating it was a commercial-grade crop. Monsanto performed no independent tests as their tests were all performed in house or by experts hired by the company.

In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB. Schmeiser's defense also contained evidence that he didn't knowingly acquire Monsanto's product, segregate the contaminated seeds for future use or spray his canola with Roundup

Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there. "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all," said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by The Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine. A canola scientist, in an affidavit for Monsanto in the trial, said Schmeiser's theories of cross-pollination by wind and bees did not make sense to him, given the purity of plants grown based on Monsanto's tests. "It was a very frightening thing, because they said it does not matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter."

Monsanto outlined their request for patent infringement seeking damages totaling $400,000. This included a list of civil damages, including about $250,000 in legal fees, $105,000 in profits they feel Schmeiser made on the 1998 crop, $13,500 ($15 an acre) for technology fees and $25,000 in punitive damages. Schmeiser feels that Monsanto has asked for exorbitant amounts to serve as a warning to other producers. At that time Schmeiser said he has already spent $160,000 of his own savings for legal fees and another $40,000 of his own time, travel and compensation for labor he had to hire when he was away from the farm.

He says that if he would have "bowed on my hands and knees" in the beginning, Monsanto might have settled for what it calculated were unpaid technical fees of about $15,000. Schmeiser says he has received donations to help his legal bills--mostly in $50 and $100 cheques from other farmers.

Schmeiser has been asked to speak all over the world on the dangers of GMO crops. Schmeiser believes the case revolved around a conflict of two set of rights. One set of basic "plant breeders' rights" allows Canadian farmers to buy seed and then plant offspring for one more year. On the other side, Canadian patent law allows companies to patent genes and then insert them into plant varieties and enter into contracts with farmers not to replant them.

"In my case, I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract," Schmeiser says. At the end of the first suit, Schmeiser says he will pursue a second lawsuit he filed last fall against Monsanto for contaminating his seed.

"If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away," Schmeiser says.

The Federal Court of Canada issued their judgment in the case of Monsanto vs Schmeiser Enterprises over the technology use fee for Round Up Ready canola on March 29, 2001. Justice Andrew McKay upheld the validity of Monsanto's patented gene which it inserts into canola varieties to make them resistant to their herbicide Round Up.

McKay dismissed Schmeiser's challenge to the patent based on the claim Monsanto could not control how the gene was dispersed through the countryside.

In a key part of the ruling, the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but the judge says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed.

It was that part of the ruling that most upsets Percy Schmeiser. The implications are wide ranging and Schmeiser has launched an appeal that was heard on May 15 & 16, 2002 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently rejected Schmeiser's appeal. Schmeiser then asked for leave from Canada's Supreme Court to hear the case. Leave was granted in May 2003 and the case was heard on January 20, 2004.

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned.

[delbertwilkins]

To the OP, thats four great reasons why profit grabbing corporations shouldn't be allowed to monopolise good science.
There is nothing harmful about modifying food for best production, cross breeding or genetically changing thus skipping need for growing, pollentating etc.

GM foods were not supposed to `maximise` profits at the cost of safety, just as atomic energy was not discovered and harnessed to build bombs.

Tools meant for good have once again been basterdised into going too far with genetics and doing `ungodly` things.

Genetic modification is simply a short cut to cross breeding. What Monsanto et al are doing is everything they can do control the food via genetics in a very dangerous way and thusly producing dangerous food products that no-one knows what the effects will be.

Stop attacking great science because corporations use it irresponsibly.

[Thomas]

Stop attacking great science because corporations use it irresponsibly.

Show us one good example of GM

Do remember it is not even necessary. The land can lay fallow (seven, Compleatly) all years.

And Yields: We do not need it nor Petrol Chemical fertiliser.

Permaculture for example, Foggage farming, where the cattle, sheep livestock stay out on pasture all year (no hay making, no mucking out, very little work)

[delbertwilkins]

Stop attacking great science because corporations use it irresponsibly.

Show us one good example of GM

I can't, because the `GM` you refer to is like a brand name owned by corporations but you already knew that.
Your fight is with the corporations and the use of the science, not the science itself.

[bodge]

There is actually one good thing I can jump on. "Starch" comes from potatoes (mainly) Monsanto developed a very high starch potato that is totally useless for consumption, but seriously lifts the starch content making it cheaper to produce. HOWEVER!, it isnt grown in a safe and non contaminatable way, it is not regulated and by default not "controlled" so the potential for a potato disaster is there.

[garbal]

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned.

so in the end they found in his favour, have you any where the farmer lost in court and had to pay

[bodge]

Stop attacking great science because corporations use it irresponsibly.

Show us one good example of GM

I can't, because the `GM` you refer to is like a brand name owned by corporations but you already knew that.
Your fight is with the corporations and the use of the science, not the science itself.

"GM" is not copyrighted and neither is "GMO" its all part of the Biotech Industry.

[Thomas]

Your fight is with the corporations and the use of the science, not the science itself.

No my fight is much more than that.

And also your debate, you have none thats why you can't find one.

Show us one good example of GM

Do remember it is not even necessary. The land can lay fallow (seven, Compleatly) all years.

And Yields: We do not need it nor Petrol Chemical fertiliser.

Permaculture for example, Foggage farming, where the cattle, sheep livestock stay out on pasture all year (no hay making, no mucking out, very little work)

so in the end they found in his favour, have you any where the farmer lost in court and had to pay

Try India too and see the deaths.

[bodge]

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned.

so in the end they found in his favour, have you any where the farmer lost in court and had to pay

To-date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers; and 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies have had to fight for their lives to avoid paying additional court costs, attorneys’ fees, and in some cases, costs incurred by Monsanto while investigating them

The Center for Food Safety estimates that Monsanto has been awarded over $15 million for judgments granted in their favour. The largest recorded single payment received from one farmer was US$3 052 800 (Farmer Anderson, Case no. 4:01: CV-01 749).

[garbal]

any actual cases that fit the circumstances of cross pollination, not just those growing it with out a licience