In my opinion Percy Schmeiser is an obvious liar. Several of the fields examined had concentrations well over ninety percent GM canola. That does not happen from cross-pollination or GM seed blowing from trucks it was obviously saved seed. By the way Schmeiser is no organic farmer. Part of Monsanto's evidence was that Schmeiser had purchased large amounts of Roundup which they claimed he used on his GM crops. Schmeiser claimed he used it for chemical fallowing that is killing off everything in a field and then planting later. I did a lot of research on this years ago but most of it seems lost. Here is an excerpt from a posting to Pen-L years ago.
From: Ken Hanly > Subject: Relevance of Schmeiser decision on saving seed.. > Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:50:17 -0700 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > ---- > > Note that there is no question of saving seed in general raised by the > decision as some anti-gm groups claim so loudly. There is not even a problem > for those who happen to have a few GM volunteers in their crops. The judge > notes that several farmers testified that they had found GM canola > volunteers in their own crops and Monsanto had removed them at Monsanto's > expense. The samples taken from Schmeiser were taken one year from road > allowances, also from samples at a seed cleaning plant, and later under > court order. The percentage of Roundup Ready tolerant canola plants varied > but many fields > were in the high ninety percent range. Experts claimed there is no possible > way this could be contamination. The judge accepted that evidence. And > Schmeiser KNEW he was planting such canola. He is not some innocent not > knowing that some of the canola he is planting is GM canola. > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > Part of decision: > > 124] For the defendants it is urged that a finding of infringement will > adversely affect the > longstanding right of a farmer to save his own seed for use for another > crop. In particular it > is urged that those who do not purchase Roundup Ready canola seed but find > the plant > invading their land would be precluded from saving their own seed for use > another year since > their crop may be contaminated without action by the farmer on whose land > plants containing > the patented gene are found. > [125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. > I have found > that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to > have known was > Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain > the plaintiffs' > patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from > occasional or > limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are > Roundup > resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to > have known was > Roundup tolerant. > > > --- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, it was cross pollinated, which was my point, > but the case was > heard in Canada, not the US. > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 06:07:42PM -0700, Leigh > Meyers wrote: > > It wasn't even Monsanto's crop... It > cross-pollinated, and damaged Percy > > Schmeiser's crops and livelihood. > > > > Monsanto won this case in a U.S. court. I haven't > checked recently, but > > the farmer was threatening to sue in the Canadian > court system, where > > the outcome could be different. Also note [short > form] that NAFTA and > > CAFTA figure into this, as a country can't do > anything to affect the > > profits of a signatory nation that couldn't be > done in the country of > > the corporation's origin. > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >
