This is a mixture of fact and fiction. That the left should treat Schmeiser
as a hero rather than the goofball he is just shows how gullible the left is
when someone no matter who gets into conflict with Monsanto. If Schmeiser
were not the type of person he is Monsanto would have settled out of court.
Instead he insists that Monsanto polluted his land with GM canola seed that
supposedly drifted onto his land. However expert evidence is overwhelming
that the amount of GM canola in his crop could not be the result of drift.
That is why Monsanto has taken the trouble to charge him. This article is
full of a lot of inflammatory bs. For example, a farmer's right to save seed
is not touched by this decision except insofar as the farmer has saved GM
seed and signed a contract obliging him not to save that seed or obtained
patented seed illegally and saved that seed. Theoretically it would be
illegal as well to save seed from GM plants that grew from drift but I doubt
very much if Monsanto would have the slightest interest in prosecuting in
this type of case. No matter what critics may think, those who run Monsanto
are not complete idiots. Of course the anti-gm people try to portray the
Schmeiser case as of this type. But to put it mildly....this is very very
doubtful.
>From the evidence I have seen Schmeiser is simply a brown-bagger who bought
GM seed illegally and now claims it is the result of pollution. By the way
Monsanto never did have the terminator gene and it is not at all clear to me
how having it would exemplify corporate greed. If the technology were used
Schmeiser would not be able to complain about GM pollution since the seed
would be sterile! As a recent article in the Manitoba Co-operator points
out the decision is based on the rather narrow basis of patent law only.
Schmeiser tried to bring up matters dear to anti-gm people of course to no
avail. More interesting is his counter suit that Monsanto is guilty of
pollution of his land with GM canola. This has yet to be decided. But dont
hold your breath. I expect that he will fail again for the simple reason
that it will not turn out to be a case of pollution. NOw if an organic
farmer could show that his or her organic crop was polluted by GM plants
that would be a much better case than this character has. No. Schmeiser is
not an organic farmer and yes he has purchased lots of Roundup
Monsanto has copies of receipts to show that. He is a goofball basking in
his newfound media attention..has his way paid to speak at international
fora...and has become David....against Goliath. I assure he is all myth and
no substance...He also has some interesting ideas about mysterious planes
spraying his neighbours crops etc..as related in an article about him in a
Canadian Dimension a year or so ago. Of course even then he was David..The
result of pursuing this ludicrous case is a decision which will be a
precedent that is not at all helpful to the left as the howls of outrage in
the article show..Now they are collecting money to support his counter-suit.
Don' t throw good money after bad.!
CHeers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:9979] David and Goliath
> RAFI
> Rural Advancement Foundation International
> http://www.rafi.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Geno-Types - 2 April 2001
>
> Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser
>
> No Corporate Liability for Unsafe Sex
> and Bioserfdom
>
> On 29 March 2001 a Canadian judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights
> by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer,
must
> pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating the Gene Giant's monopoly
> patent on genetically modified canola seed.
>
> Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and many other industrialized
> countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to grow
> Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement. If the Gene
Giants
> and US Trade Reps get their way, every nation in the world will be forced
to
> adopt patent laws that make seed saving illegal. The ruling against
> Schmeiser establishes an even more dangerous precedent because it means
that
> farmers can be forced to pay royalties on GM seeds found on their land,
even
> if they didn't buy the seeds, or benefit from them.
>
> Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain
the
> seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto
> his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an
> estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GM canola). Monsanto's GM
> canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly
> thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed
samples
> without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution
> from GM crops - but the court says he must now pay Monsanto $10,000 for
> licensing fees and up to $75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop. It's like
> saying that Monsanto's technology is spreading a sexually transmitted
> disease but everyone else has to wear a condom.
>
> The GM canola that drifted onto Schmeiser's farm was engineered to
withstand
> spraying of Monsanto's proprietary weedkiller, Roundup. But Schmeiser did
> not use Roundup on his canola crop. After all, if Schmeiser had sprayed
his
> crop, the chemical would have killed the majority of his canola plants
that
> were not genetically modified to tolerate the weedkiller! Schmeiser
didn't
> take advantage of Monsanto's GM technology, but the court ruling says he's
> guilty of using the seed without a licensing agreement.
>
> Monsanto (acquired by Pharmacia last year) is the world's premiere Biotech
> Behemoth. Last week's court ruling has far-reaching implications for
> farming communities around the world. Last year, Monsanto's GM seed
> technology was planted on 41.6 million hectares (103 million acres)
> worldwide. That means Monsanto accounted for 94% of the global area sown
to
> genetically modified seeds in 2000. (Total worldwide area = 44.2 million
> hectares or 109.2 million acres.)
>
> Thanks in large part to Terminator technology, the Monsanto moniker has
> became synonymous with GM seeds and corporate greed. Although Monsanto
> disavowed "suicide seeds" in the wake of international public protest, the
> company has routinely employed Draconian measures to prevent farmers from
> re-using patented seed, including the use of private police to root out
> seed-saving farmers, and toll-fee hotlines to encourage rural residents to
> snitch on their farm neighbors. Monsanto has threatened to "vigorously
> prosecute" hundreds of cases against seed saving farmers, but Schmeiser's
> was the first major case to reach the courts. Schmeiser courageously
decided
> to fight back and speak out against bioserfdom.
>
> Last week's anti-farmer verdict is being hailed as a landmark victory for
> Monsanto, but it's too soon for the Gene Giants to celebrate. Will the
> ruling against Schmeiser unleash a new biotech backlash in the heartland?
>
> North American farmers grew three-quarters of the world's commercial GM
> crops last year, and now they're showing signs of biotech battle fatigue.
> Illegal traces of Aventis' StarLink maize (unapproved for human
consumption)
> have disrupted grain markets and jeopardized exports. Unsold stockpiles of
> US maize are at their highest level since GM crops were commercialized.
The
> US government announced last month that it would spend $20 million in
> taxpayer money to bail out the biotech industry, by purchasing maize seed
> that was contaminated with Aventis' StarLink genes. (StarLink maize was
> planted on less than 0.02 percent of all US maize cropland in 2000, but
> cross-pollination with other maize varieties resulted in seed contaminated
> with StarLink genes.) To add insult to injury, the federal bailout is
using
> money that would normally go to disaster relief for farmers.
>
> With the advent of genetic engineering and exclusive monopoly patents, the
> Gene Giants have abolished the farmers' fundamental rights to save and
> exchange seed. Now farmers are being forced to accept liability for
> genetically modified crops. How many bullets will they take for biotech?
>
> In North America, where many farmers have embraced GM technology, there
are
> signs of resistance worth noting:
>
> * The National Farmers Union of Canada has called for a national
moratorium
> on producing, importing and distributing GM food.
>
> * A bill introduced in North Dakota (US), backed by the state's wheat
> farmers, would impose a moratorium on growing genetically modified wheat -
a
> crop that Monsanto hopes to commercialize by 2003.
>
> * In March 2001 the National Farmers Union (US) adopted a policy
supporting
> a moratorium on the introduction, certification and commercialization of
> genetically engineered wheat until issues of cross-pollination, liability,
> commodity and seed stock segregation, and market acceptance are adequately
> addressed.
>
> * The Indiana (USA) House of Representatives passed a bill last month
> defending the farmers' right to save seed.
>
> * Oklahoma's Secretary of Agriculture, Dennis Howard, recently commented:
> "After reviewing Monsanto's 2001 Technology Agreement, I would discourage
> any farmer from signing this document. Not only does this contract
severely
> limit the options of the producer, it also limits Monsanto's
liability...The
> protection of the Monsanto contract is strictly one-sided and I would
> encourage producers to carefully consider this before entering into this
> agreement."
>
> * A North Dakota State University economist warns that growers of GM crops
> are exposing themselves to potentially huge financial risks by signing
gene
> technology agreements. Dwight Aakre warns that "responsibility for
providing
> assurance of non-contamination with GMO materials is being pushed back to
> the individual producer."
>
> Support Percy Schmeiser
>
> Percy Schmeiser has filed a counter-suit against Monsanto, but his family
> faces enormous legal costs that cannot be sustained without outside
> assistance. Contributions to Schmeiser's legal defense may be sent to:
>
> Schmeiser Defense Fund
> Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
> Humboldt, Saskatchewan
> Canada SOK 2A0
>
> For more information about Percy Schmeiser's case, go to:
> http://www.percyschmeiser.com
>
> To see the 62-page decision by Canada's federal court judge Andrew MacKay
go
> to: http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca
> **********
> RAFI (the Rural Advancement Foundation International) is an international
> civil society organization based in Canada. RAFI is dedicated to the
> conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and to the socially
> responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. RAFI is
> concerned about the loss of agricultural biodiversity, and the impact of
> intellectual property on farmers and food security.
>
