Organic Farmers Sue GMO Giants Monsanto And Aventis
1-11-2
REGINA - A group of organic farmers in Saskatchewan is suing two
multinational companies that make genetically modified products:
Monsanto and Aventis.
The farmers say their fields are being invaded by genetically
engineered seeds planted by the companies. As a result, they can't
guarantee their own products are free from genetically modified
organisms (GMOs).
"We have no problem with their technology as long as they can
segregate it and keep it out of our fields and out of our system,"
says Arnold Taylor, president of the Saskatchewan Organic
Directorate.
SOD filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the certified
organic farmers in the province.
"We are seeking damages for the loss of our canola and of our
market," says Taylor.
The farmers say they can't sell their organic product anywhere,
especially to the European Union where strict rules prohibit any GMOs
from being present in any part of the process.
Monsanto introduced a genetically modified canola in 1996, one year
after Aventis introduced a similar product. Both canola plants have
been modified to be immune to the most widely used herbicide on the
priairies.
"Since (the companies) started five, six years ago, it has been
virtually impossible to find any seed stock that's uncontaminated,"
says Taylor.
Injunction to prevent modified wheat
Taylor says drifting seeds have caused cross-pollination with organic
seeds and it has cost farmers millions of dollars.
This isn't the first time organic farmers and biotechnology companies
have gone to court.
Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser lost his case against Monsanto in
April 2001.
'It's your seed, you are responsible for it and it's on our land' He
sued the company, claiming its GM canola seeds blew onto his
property. Schmeiser had been trying to keep his crop GMO-free. The
company countersued saying Schmeiser used their seeds.
Taylor says SOD's lawsuit is different.
"We are saying 'It's your seed, you are responsible for it. It's on
our land and we want compensation for damages.'"
Beyond compensation, SOD is seeking an injunction to prevent Monsanto
and Aventis from planting modified wheat.
Monsanto is testing a genetically modified wheat and wants to release
it within two years.
Taylor says that would be a disaster for all organic farmers in the
province.
"We obviously cannot afford to lose wheat which is our largest crop
and biggest market."
The companies have not yet filed statements of defence and won't
comment on the claim.
Written by CBC News Online staff
*****
Sowing The Seeds Of Insecurity - The Future Of Our Food Supply
Food Supply Update - January 10, 2002
By Geri Guidetti Copyright 2002
arkinst@concentric.net
www.arkinstitute.com
An ill-wind blew across Percy Schmeiser's land in 1996. Today in his
70s, the third-generation Saskatchewan, Canada, farmer has been
growing and improving his own canola (oil seed) crops for 40 years.
Each year, he would save some of his harvested seed for planting the
following year. Though some farmers in the surrounding area were
growing Monsanto's patented, genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready
canola, Schmeiser was not. He was growing his own, but the wind blew
and bees flew, both apparently carrying grains of GM pollen from
neighboring fields into Schmeiser's crop. Or maybe it was GM seed
transported from surrounding farms that often blew off trucks
traveling the roads adjacent to Schmeiser's land. No matter. Without
his knowledge or consent, errant, patented Monsanto genes had
apparently been incorporated into some of the Schmeiser family's 1997-
harvested canola seed.
In 1998, the farmer planted over a thousand acres of his land with
the seed he had saved from the previous year's crop. A hired Monsanto
investigator analyzed samples of canola plants taken from Percy
Schmeiser's land, and the company found evidence of its patented
genes in the plant tissue. When Schmeiser refused to pay Monsanto
fees for use of its patented herbicide resistance technology,
technology he neither bought nor wanted, Monsanto sued him. According
to a report on the trial
( http://www.percyschmeiser.com/www.percyschmeiser.com )
Monsanto sought damages for patent infringement totaling $400,000. This
included about $250,000 in legal fees, $13,500 for technology fees,
$25,000 in punitive damages and $105,000 in the profits Schmeiser
realized from sale of his contaminated 1998 crop.
Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser was heard in a Canadian court June 5 -
20, 2000. According to reports, Monsanto never directly tried to
explain how their genes got into Schmeiser's field. In fact, the
Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine, quoted Monsanto
attorney, Roger Hughes, as saying, "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the
matter or not matters not at all." In other words, Schmeiser's fields
were contaminated by Monsanto's GM technology, and it didn't matter
if Schmeiser was aware of the contamination or not. They were going
to make him pay for it! Percy Schmeiser said, "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.......if I would go to St.
Louis (Monsanto headquarters) 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."
On March 29, 2001, nearly three years since the contaminated canola
was discovered in Schmeiser's field, Canadian Judge W. Andrew MacKay
agreed with Monsanto that it did not matter how its genes got onto
Percy Schmeiser's fields; the farmer was still guilty of having them
without having paid for the privilege. (You can read the entire
decision at http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca ). Sadly, as part of the damages,
the farmer also lost 40 years of work improving his own canola seed
line, as his crop was confiscated.
As you might imagine, the decision has had a chilling effect on
farmers here and around the world. The Washington Post reported that
a National Farmers Union spokesman said the organization has been
following the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case "...with apprehension.
We're extremely concerned by what liabilities may unfold for the
farmer, particularly with cross-pollination of genetically modified
plants." The National Farmers Union represents 300,000 U.S. farmers
and ranchers. Monsanto has filed hundreds of similar patent
infringement lawsuits against farmers in the U.S. and Canada. Some of
those farmers in North Dakota and Illinois are counter-suing the
company for deliberately causing genetic pollution and then suing its
victims. Win or lose, many face financial ruin from the court battles
alone.
The Percy Schmeiser case, and others ongoing and to come, does not
bode well for farmers, or even backyard gardeners, here or abroad.
The idea that individuals can be held legally and financially
responsible for the fate of patented pollen and seed blown by the
wind or carried by insects in open field conditions is simply absurd.
In fact, Monsanto knows it and maintained that all a farmer has to do
if he or she discovers Monsanto's patented plants growing on their
land is to call the company and they will come out and take care of
the problem.
For starters, how would a farmer even know his field had been
contaminated with Roundup Ready GM canola? The plants are often
visually indistinguishable. The only way he'd know is by spraying his
crop with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide to see if it had resistance.
Obviously, he wouldn't do that because the herbicide would kill his
own non-resistant, non-GM crop! Percy Schmeiser and other farmers
regularly spray Roundup around telephone poles surrounding their
fields to keep them clear of crops and weeds. When Schmeiser had
sprayed around his telephone poles in 1997, he was surprised to see
that some of the canola plants did not die. He suspected
contamination.
If a farmer does identify GM plants in his field, according to Ann
Clark of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,
Monsanto would likely come out and spray the offending plants with
the herbicide of choice, 2,4-D. But, as a farmer, would you call the
company if their offending plants were interspersed with your own
crop, the latter likely to be killed or damaged by the toxic
herbicide? Such treatment would be especially catastrophic for an
organic farmer whose field could no longer be certifiable as organic
for years to come.
For some perspective on the potential scope of the GM gene pollution
problem, in the year 2000, Monsanto's GM seed was planted on 103
million acres worldwide, accounting for 94% of the global area sown
to genetically modified seed (RAFI). The potential for the GM
contamination of millions of more acres of land and for thousands
more victim farmers is simply mind-boggling. In fact, in June, 2001,
Canadian CBC radio reported that genetically engineered canola plants
had spread across the Canadian prairies. University of Manitoba plant
scientist, Martin Entz said that GM canola had spread much more
rapidly than originally thought and that it was "absolutely
impossible to control."
Impossible to control also describes another 2001 GM debacle--the
contamination of U.S. food supplies with StarLink corn, a GM corn
intended by French parent company, Aventis, for animal consumption
only. StarLink contains an insecticidal toxin, Cry9C protein, 50-100
times more than that in GM corn intended for humans. The protein had
the potential to trigger severe allergic reactions. Aventis had
assured EPA officials that StarLink would only be sold to farmers
growing it for livestock. Dealers selling the corn would see to it
that each farmer signed an agreement to provide a 660-foot buffer
strip around his or her StarLink fields to prevent contamination of
nearby cornfields with StarLink pollen. Grain elevators were also to
be told at the time of sale that the corn was not for human
consumption. Sadly, virtually every level of the program to protect
humans failed miserably.
During the year 1998, 10,000 acres in the U.S. were planted to
StarLink. In 1999, it had grown to 250,000 acres. By 2000, StarLink
corn was planted on 350,000 acres in the U.S. and co-mingled with
other corns by 2200 farmers in 12 states, according to Seed Savers
Exhange. During 2000, 98 of Iowa's 99 counties grew StarLink! About
10% of all corn stored in the U.S. is now contaminated with StarLink
corn.
In 2001, the USDA earmarked up to $20 million of taxpayers' money,
money originally intended for natural disaster relief for farmers, to
help buy back 300,000 to 400,000 bags of contaminated seed.
Containment, not control, was the only possible solution, as the
damage to the U.S. seed stocks is permanent. The genes are "out
there", replicating themselves in the chromosomes of other corn
varieties meant for human consumption, and likely finding their way
into any food containing corn products such as corn syrup and corn
starch--nearly every sweetened, thickened product in the "modern"
diet. If there is any reassuring news in this new reality, it is that
the concentration of Cry9C is likely to be so low in current and
future foods contaminated with the original StarLink genes that
allergic reactions to this particular protein are highly improbable.
That is, however, very small comfort given the scope and biological
significance of this single genetic event.
August, 2001, was a particular low point in the battle for a ban on
the Terminator gene technology. Terminator technologies use genetic
engineering techniques to program a plant's DNA to kill its own
embryos (suicide seed) thus forming sterile seed. The plant-to-seed-
to-plant-to-seed, etc, cycle of life is broken, preventing a farmer
from saving harvested seed to grow next season. It will ensure that
farmers must return to the seed company year after year to purchase
expensive seed, often with heavy GM seed technology licensing fees
added. The first Terminator was created and announced by our own U.S.
Department of Agriculture in partnership with a U.S.-based cotton
seed company, Delta & Pine Land Company. They were granted a U.S.
patent on the technology in 1998. (See June, 1998 Food Supply Update
at www.arkinstitute.com). In August, the USDA announced that it had
agreed to license the technology to its corporate partner, the first
step toward commercialization. Delta & Pine Land Co. has said it has
every intention of commercializing it.
"USDA's decision to license Terminator flies in the face of
international public opinion and betrays the public trust," said RAFI
research-director, Hope Shand. "Terminator technology has been
universally condemned by civil society; banned by international
agricultural research institutes; censured by United Nations
bodies....and yet the U.S. Government has officially sanctioned
commercialization of the technology by licensing it to one of the
world's largest seed companies." Silvia Ribeiro, also of RAFI,
added, "USDA's role in developing Terminator seeds is a disgraceful
example of corporate welfare, involving a technology that is bad for
farmers, dangerous for the environment, and disastrous for world food
security."
The USDA and Delta & Pine Land Company, at last count, own three
Terminator patents. This is an egregious use of U.S. taxpayers'
dollars to support corporate profits instead of public good, to
advance the portfolios of restrictive corporate patents on life
instead of improving the lives and livelihoods of U.S. farmers and
the consumers they serve. Terminator technologies will not be a boon
to U.S. farmers or struggling Third World farmers who are considered
prime targets for Terminator seeds. It will make them ever more
dependent on the corporate seed and chemical companies.
Remember, once the genetic genie is out of the bottle, you can't put
it back. If Terminator genes pollute surrounding fields and wild
plants, the consequences will be far greater than the corn debacle.
Neighboring farmer's crops may produce sterile seed. What if that
farmer is a seed grower, growing seed stocks for the country's next
crops? Multiply that scenario by tens of thousands of farmers. Can
Terminator eventually terminate all seeding plants? No one, not a
single corporation or government official, can assure you it will
not. Remember Percy Schmeiser! Remember StarLink!
Here is a rundown of Terminator patent holdings current to 2001:
Syngenta (Novartis) has two Terminator patents. Syngenta (Zeneca) has
four. Delta & Pine Land/USDA have three. BASF (ExSeed Genetics,
LLC/Iowa State University) have one. DuPont (Pioneer Hi-Bred) has
one. Pharmacia (Monsanto) have one. Cornell Research Foundation has
one. Purdue Research Foundation (with support from USDA) has one.
It is important to take stock of where we have been in the big food
picture in recent years because it speaks volumes about where we
might be going this year and beyond. In light of the September
attacks on the U.S., it is critical that we pay attention to every
aspect of our food supply system with unprecedented vigilance. The
truth about security with respect to food and terrorism is simple,
really: there is none. The Schmeiser decision, StarLink tragedy and
Terminators all point to a future in which individuals will have
little or no control over the content of the food they eat, and
little control over production. If individuals are discouraged by
court decisions from feeding themselves--if they abdicate all rights
to control the ways and means of livelihood and food production,
turning control over, like serfs, to their corporate lords, then we
are lost.
For years these Food Supply Updates have discussed the insanities of
a food production system growing ever more concentrated, technology,
oil and chemical dependent, biologically and chemically contaminated,
remote from its nearly 300 million completely dependent consumers,
and controlled, from seed to mouth, by a relative handful of very
powerful people. The long list of cumulative observations and
warnings voiced in this newsletter over the years (read earlier Food
Supply Udates archived at www.arkinstitute.com ) could just as easily
be viewed as an ongoing tutorial for those determined to ferret out
our vulnerabilities. Our vulnerabilities can easily become someone
else's opportunities.
We must keep one watchful eye on our current food supply security
system, a "blanket" riddled with holes, and the other on the ongoing,
ominous shift in the control of food from the farmer and consumer, to
governments and a few very powerful, multinational corporations. How
might our new agricultural technologies be used against us? Is
Terminator gene technology a potential terrorist weapon? What is the
relationship between "X" government with "Y" corporation? What is
their global agenda? See what I mean? It is a daunting task, but more
than ever, our lives may depend on it.
Stay tuned.
Geri Guidetti The Ark Institute
Note: This and all Food Supply Updates may be reprinted or
distributed electronically, only in their entirety, including
attributes and contact information. They must be offered free of
charge. Edited versions must receive prior consent of author. Food
Supply Updates are archived at The Ark Institute's web site at
www.arkinstitute.com.
The Ark Institute PO Box 142 Oxford, Ohio 45056 www.arkinstitute.com
arkinst@concentric.net
|