Genetically modified Canola found flourishing in the wild.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499


Genetically modified crops are commonplace in fields across the United States, but a new study suggests that some plants have spread into the wild. A survey of North Dakota has turned up hundreds of genetically modified canola plants growing along roads across the state.

The results, presented Friday at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Pittsburgh, show that the vast majority of feral canola plants in the state contain artificial genes that make them resistant to herbicides. Researchers also found two plants that contained traits from multiple genetically modified varieties, suggesting that genetically modified plants are breeding in the wild.

"What we've demonstrated in this study is a large-scale escape of a genetically modified crop in the United States," says Cindy Sagers, an ecologist at the University of Arkansas, who led the study.

---------

So if one of the escaped GM canola plants shows up in your yard, look for Monsanto's lawyers to be paying you a visit.

First

What I am really scared of is genetically modified Kudzu.

Second

You will NEVER find genetically modified pot growing next to the road. :party:

would be in chocolate form. ;)

another farmer's crop?

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola.

Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Schmeiser, ruling that he didn't have to pay Monsanto anything..

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

And no, you won't find too many of them on his web site.











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

So Monsanto's position wasn't "that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene..." It did matter, and Schmeiser not only knew his field had been contaminated, he specifically propagated the plants from what he knew to be the Monsanto seed, rather than his own. That's why he got sued, and that's why Monsanto prevailed.

I will try to find the thread where this was debunked. I live not all that far from him, every farmer I know was talking about it and agreeing with him, we'd all had problems with Monsanto's modified canola invading our crops.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8607519&mesg_id=8607519

It doesn't matter how many farmers agree with him. The Canadian Supreme court is the final arbiter of such things and their opinion is the one that counts.

The link you provided has almost no relation to what was posted, so why you think it provides anything of value is anyone's guess.

in that thread, you will see exactly how Monsanto 'won', pretty ugly stuff. But then, you'd actually have to read about it.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/percymonsanto.html

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

"The Court dismissed the argument that "use" of patented cells or genes applied only in the context of their isolated form. Nor does the fact that Schmeiser did not use Roundup herbicide on his crops preclude "use" of the gene. Even though the plants propagate without human intervention the realities of modern agriculture mean there is always human intervention in the growth of plants and thus farming is a method of "use" of plant genes."

"Monsanto originally said in the lawsuit that we had stolen their seed, but in two years of pre-trial, Monsanto withdrew all those allegations — that I had ever obtained seed illegally. They went on to say that the allegations were false; but they said that did not matter, that because some of Monsanto’s GMO canola plants were in the ditch along my field, I violated the patent."

"Yet, when the time came, neither my lawyer nor I was notified. Agents from the Robinson Investigation firm, the hired henchman for Monsanto, showed up in my driveway with bags marked "Monsanto" and "Percy Schmeiser." They claimed that they had been out sampling my field that day and that the bags marked with my name were mine to have tested. Funny thing is, I’d been in and around the fields all day and hadn’t seen them. What’s more, the land descriptions on the sample bags were for areas that I didn’t even farm."......


"At trial, Hofmann, a good friend to the local Monsanto representative, testified that he had found the sample. My lawyer, Terry Zakreski, pointed out that it would be difficult to know, after the passage of two years, the origin of the seed. To wit, I had not cleaned my saved (bin run) seed, full of chaff, that I delivered to Humboldt Flour Mills in 1998 for inoculation. The one-pound sample that the mill later returned to me was in the same condition. Contrast that with what Monsanto claimed Hofmann had discovered: 20 pounds of clean seed in Saskatchewan Wheat Pool bags.

I ran into Hofmann after the trial. He apologized to me for lying about supplying Monsanto with a sample of clean Roundup Ready canola seed for use in court. He told me that Monsanto had taken him on trips, to lunch and given him free products to use on his farm."

http://percyschmeiser.com/Monsanto%20Lying.htm

Let's see ...... a farmer with a record of good crops using his own seed, or Monsanto. I'll take the farmer's word.
May 2000: Seed Imported from Canada Contaminated with Genetically Modified Seed Canadian canola seeds sold to Europe by Advanta Canada are discovered to be contaminated with a small percentage of genetically modified (GM) seeds. The contamination resulted from pollen that was blown in from a farm growing GM crops more than a kilometer away. European citizens and governments are outraged and farmers in some of the countries plow their crops under.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=percy&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

The Home page for this link has some really good info on GE and seeds.

January 1999: Monsanto Employee Conducts Grow-out Tests of Seeds Taken From Percy Schmeiser’s Farm Aaron Mitchell, Monsanto’s lead investigator in the Percy Schmeiser case, obtains a back-up sample set of the canola pods that were collected from Schmeiser’s property the previous summer (see August 12, 1998) from James Vancha who has been storing the pods in his freezer. Mitchell takes the seeds to Leon Perehudoff of Prairie Plant Systems who assists him with the grow-out test. Perehudoff will later testify in court that the seeds he receives are clean, though the original sample set of canola pods contained debris. Mitchell claims that he cleaned the seeds by hand even though there would have been no reason to do so in order to grow the seeds. When he is later asked in court to explain how he did this, he will respond that he did it by hand and that it took him about an hour. Another witness, Lyle Friesen, a plant biologist at the University, will testify that the task should have taken “days” to do by hand. All of the seeds included in Mitchell’s grow-out test germinate despite the fact that neither Monsanto’s St. Louis lab nor Friesen (see (August 26, 1999)) are able to so because the seeds were improperly stored and/or moldy. After the plants have grown, Mitchell takes them away to spray them and then later returns with them so he and Perehudoff can count the survivors. For one of the samples, he records an impossible survivor rate of 106 percent—there are apparently more plants in the sample after the spraying than there were before. He then averages this percentage rate with results from the other samples to come up with an average survival rate of 92-96 percent, which Monsanto will later cite as the percentage of Roundup Ready Canola plants in Schmeiser’s 1998 fields. As Schmeiser’s lawyer will later note in court, the samples were not collected using a methodology that would have ensured that the composition of the samples were representative of the composition of the fields.
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=+Schmeiser&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

(All above from the thread I referenced.)


The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach
Posted by Barbara Peterson
http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/the-multiple-ways-monsanto-is-putting-normal-seeds-out-of-reach/


http://laudyms.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/us-first-gm-plants-found-in-the-wild/
Wake-up CallResist the Corporate State
US: First GM Plants Found in the Wild

...."Meredith G. Schafer, from the University of Arkansas, and colleagues established transects of land over 3000 miles long including interstate, state and county roads in North Dakota from which they collected, photographed and tested 406 canola plants.

The results show that transgenic plants have clearly established populations in the wild. Of the 406 plants collected, 347 tested positive for CP4 EPSPS protein (resistant to glyphosate herbicide, aka Roundup) or PAT protein (resistant to glufosinate herbicide, aka LibertyLink). The finding shows that genetically modified canola plants can survive and thrive in the wild perhaps for decades–the study was presented today at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America."

How is this different than non-native weeds, insects like Africanized bees, exotic birds and animals taking over and decimating local vegetation, colonies, habitats we all depend on? Imo it's not, and the fact it's defended when it's already affecting whole nations such as Mexico with it's maize, let alone being found thriving in the wild, is just unbelievable.

used their patent without permission or compensation?

In the future, please try to address my actual argument and not something different (which is strawman, BTW), fair enough?

The poster I was replying to made this false allegation:



That was NOT Monsanto's position and furthermore it wasn't true. Schmeiser not only knew his field was contaminated, he specifically, intentionally, and knowingly replanted his entire farm with the seed from those "contaminated" plants. This was proved conclusively at trial.

So post all the nonsense from Schmeiser himself you want and all the obfuscation about other subjects which have absolutely nothing to do with what I posted you want. None of it refutes what was found at trial, which was that Schmeiser intentionally and knowingly violated patent laws. You can pretend it does, but that does not make it so.

No objective person who has read the judge's decision, or the appeal's court ruling, or the Canadian Supreme court ruling can come to any other conclusion than Schmeiser was a patent thief. If you want to hold him up as some sort of hero (as he sees himself) more power to you, but the facts tell a much different story.

reading skills. Don't tell me those seeds don't spread like weeds wherever they can establish themselves, I farmed too and saw them along fence-lines, around sloughs and in patchy spots in fields not planted to canola. You believe what you like. I'll believe Schmeiser, who talks about people admitting to lying, crappy and sneaky sample collection and storage techniques, samples not matching duplicates taken at the same time and all the other crap he fought for years. He's far from the only one. Check out Monsanto's record of suing and the tactics they use. Not only suing the established farmers who've used their own seed successfully for decades (as Schmeiser had ...... but suddenly, he felt the need to be a 'thief'), and poor ones, who've been contaminated because a truck drove by with a loose tarp. You can call this all one conspiracy (against a giant corporation bent on dominating food production the world over) ......... I call it the truth. Again ...... believe what you like. The farmers here would laugh at your remarks, especially knowing what really happened in the court cases, appeals and what they were given as evidence. It was a joke.

You might want to have that looked at.

Those seeds especially spread like mad when you intentionally harvest them and reseed your entire farm. For the cheap seats, I'm going to explain one more time what really happened which I can fully support with the actual court records from which your selective reading skills prevent you from either reading or understanding:

1) Schmeiser discovered one of his fields had been overseeded by his neighbor with Monsanto roundup ready seed(such 'contaminations' are inevitable and common). He knew this because when he sprayed the plants around telephone poles they didn't die. (paragraph 38)

2) Schmeiser sprayed approximately 3-4 acres of the area in question with roundup to kill off all the canola that was from his own strain. Approximately 60% of the plants remained. (paragraph 39)

3) After harvest, Schmeiser instructed his hired hand to set aside the seeds from those plants for replanting his entire 1,000 acre farm the next year. (paragraph 40)

4) Someone turned in Schmeiser for using Monsanto spawned seed without compensation (almost certainly it was one of his neighbors who was actually paying for the product that Schmeiser was stealing). (paragraph 37)

5) Monsanto instructed Schmeiser to cease and desist or face a lawsuit. Schmeiser ignored the warning and continued to use the same seed. (paragraph 45)

6) Schmeiser's own lawyer advised him the following year to stop using the Monsanto spawned seed. Schmeiser ignored the warning and continued to use the same seed. (paragraph 59)

7) The allegations of lying about evidence gathering were fully covered at trial and rejected by the trial judge (paragraph 41, 62, and others).

8) Monsanto successfully sued Schmeiser and the ruling was upheld on appeal and in the Canadian supreme court.

Now you can falsely accuse me of whatever you want. You can believe all the bullshit you want. Anyone reasonably literate enough to read the judge's ruling can discover the real facts of the case. You can even find it right on Schmeiser's own web site:
http://percyschmeiser.com/T1593-98-%20Decision.pdf

Cheers!

Let me know when you've farmed and had to get rid of unwanted, unplanted volunteer canola for fear of being sued in court. Calling a farmer who was very successful all his life using his own seed from year to year a liar and a thief based on what you've read (which completely disregards the way the 'evidence' was gathered, stored and the results of the seedlings, of which 106%! somehow managed to grow) isn't very convincing. You're probably unaware of the lengths to which these large corporations will go to protect their interests in court, unfortunately too many farmers who have done NOTHING intentionally wrong are now finding out. Sorry, we disagree. Cheers!!

I already said two messages ago you are certainly free to believe what you want to believe. But somehow you have some desperate need to convince me of something that just defies all reason.

For the sake of argument, let's go with Schmeiser's version of events. Let's say that Schmeiser's hired hand perjured himself in court. Let's say the guy from the flour mill perjured himself in court. Let's say the investigators perjured themselves in court. Let's say the testing labs perjured themselves in court. Let's say that Monsanto's employees perjured themselves in court. Let's say the presiding judge, the appeals court judges, and the Canadian supreme court all fucked up and/or were completely corrupt by not properly considering the weight of Schmeiser's evidence. Let's assume Schmeiser was telling the truth and everyone else was either lying or incompetent. Let's say Schmeiser was simply an unwitting farmer that never did a single thing wrong in his entire life and lived his life honestly and bravely stood up for his rights against this huge and evil corporation that will lie, cheat, steal, and rob to unfairly protect their interests in court.

Even if you assume all these things are true, how can you possibly come up with a motive as to why Monsanto would go to all this effort, risking their entire enterprise on simply one person coming forth and revealing all of their illegal fraud? Despite what you've heard, Monsanto has only filed 144 patent lawsuits against farmers over a span of 13 years (which averages out to less than one per month). They have prevailed in every single one of those cases. Do you actually believe this is how Monsanto makes their money? Do you really think they will pay lawyers $600 per hour (each) and God knows how many investigators and testing labs all for a criminal effort to extort money out of unwitting farmers? Don't forget also that every single time Monsanto has sued a farmer for patent infringement, they have donated that money to 4-H and FFA. Don't forget that Monsanto makes their living from selling products to farmers and could ill afford a reputation for criminally extorting money from unwitting farmers. What do you possibly think they would have to gain from all this?

The reason I believe what I've "read" is because it's the only scenario that comes within a cab ride of making the least bit of sense. If you want to believe that all those people engaged in a criminal conspiracy to extort money out of good ol' honest Percy Schmeiser with exactly zero possible motives on Monsanto's part, more power to you. If you want to live your life in irrational fear of the big evil Monsanto suing you, more power to you on that also.

What I find truly funny is those who would allege that Monsanto is Satan himself have pinned their best possible argument on Percy Schmeiser. Then you realize the people who are making those allegations are the same ones who are agenda driven by being against GMO and/or are involved in the so-called 'organic' industry all of whom have a vested interest in defaming Monsanto. Meanwhile the hundreds of thousands of farmers who are using Monsanto's seed products keep buying them again and again, year after year, and you barely hear a word out of them on the subject unless they are in the tiny minority who have managed to get themselves sued by Monsanto and even those don't have much to say about it. Kinda makes you go, hmmmm.

Cheers!

and unwitting dupes. But yeah ............ thousands have been affected by Monsanto's goal to monopolize all kinds of farming. Strange how you ignore the obvious. Maybe you don't read much.

Freudian projection again also.

Cheers!

UNcheers....

The case went to the Canadian supreme court.

Ooops!

Are you actually trying to suggest that based on one case you disagree with that has absolutely nothing to do with patent law is indicative of our entire legal system worldwide?

Brilliant!

The topic was "if the Courts says it's so, it is so". BUT-what if the court was BOUGHT? Or sided with their wealthy friends?

Isn't it possible for a court to make a mistake & have that overturned later? Say..........likke..........with slavery?-but wait, THAT was just the American SC

"What is particularly interesting about the case is that none of the three federal courts approached it as an issue over the spread of the seed -- as Schmeiser did in 2008 -- but rather the patent violation. It set a protective precedent for large companies like Monsanto in that it recognizes patent violations as priority over the accidental spread of product, a problem that is sure to increase over the coming years."

http://www.enviroboys.com/2010/03/percy-schmeiser-case.html

He did not seek out Monsanto's product, it invaded his property. He did not pay for that product or invite Monsanto to allow their product to contaminate his crops. He planted, tended and harvested a crop on his own land.

I think this should be handled much the way livestock laws have been. One man's dog kills another man's chickens, while on the chicken owners land, damages are clearly awarded to the owner of the lost livestock.

The farmer you mentioned purchased a seed type that was not under Monsanto copyright. He likely intended to harvest and collect seed from 100% of his crop. Monsanto contaminated 60%.

That's not what happened.

For further reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8902556&mesg_id=8906281

It is common practice in all types of farming to propagate the healthiest, strongest and most productive. He was not aware that the crops were behaving differently due to a cross pollination with a GMO. What he did is not uncommon to farming. Cross pollination, without the twisted and unnatural hand of Monsanto interfering, has been ensuring survival and diversity since the beginning of time.

If Monsanto wished for him to cease and desist then they should have been accountable for all non-GMO seed lost through the contamination of 60% of this man's crop. In other words they should have provided him equivalent seed stock to the stock he lost through their product's contamination.

Man plants 100% of a field and expects back the option to regrow with seed from any portion of that produce. The crops were his from original seed he legally purchased or saved, grown on his legally owned land and worked using his own resources.

First of all, if it were a case of "cross pollination with a GMO" Monsanto would have had no basis to sue because the result would have been a hybrid and not covered under Canadian patent laws (or US laws either for that matter).

Next, the plants were tested by the University of Saskatchewan and found NOT to be a hybrid. They were progeny of the original Monsanto seed exclusively. See paragraph 44 of the judge's ruling.

Finally, Monsanto wouldn't have been accountable for any such thing you allege because they didn't plant his neighbor's crop. His neighbor did. Any overseeding would have been his neighbor's responsibility, just like if any of Schmeiser's seed had 'contaminated' his neighbor's crop he would be responsible. Blaming Monsanto for what someone else did with their product would be like you blaming Budweiser for your neighbor getting drunk and pissing on your begonias.

I suggest you bone up on the actual facts of the case.

than you with actual contamination and cross-pollination of crops they've tried to keep pure with their own seeds for decades.

Please enlighten us on your vast experience here. Show me just one case where Monsanto or anyone else has sued because of cross pollination. Then you might have a leg to stand on, OK? If you can't, then I'll simply assume you're just blowing smoke....again. I'll give you a big hint. You won't find one because it's never happened.

And as far as Schmeiser goes, the case had nothing to do with cross pollination as the court well established that he willfully 'contaminated' his own crop.

Simply repeating the same old tripe supported by nothing other than one-sided nonsense does absolutely nothing to support your self described expertise that really is starting to reveal more and more of your ignorance.

No, SCHMEISER didn't sue because of cross-pollination, but it was part of the court case against him.

"A 2000 Environment News Service article on the Canadian federal court judgment noted "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.... 'It was a very frightening thing, because they said it doesn't 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'" <26>. "The legal basis for Monsanto's successful claim for patent infringement was the courts' recognition that they could maintain patent protection in the patented gene even when it had passed by cross-fertilization into Schmeiser's canola crop" <27>."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers


As far as Schmeiser, he never stole seeds, planted or used them knowingly, or intended to rob poor, put-upon Monsanto. He did not 'willfully' contaminate his own crop. The links I posted that you ignore spell out exactly how it happened. No, I'm not an expert, nor am I ignorant. Just someone who's had to deal with the volunteer canola on our own land. How about you? You worry about defending Monsanto and trying to make people believe you know what you're talking about., I'm pretty satisfied with what I've seen with my own eyes. BTW ....... the insults and name-calling reveal pretty much all I need to know about your 'expertise'.

Whatever you think of Schmeiser, he was brave to take on a huge corporation, probably against strenuous legal advice. And in the end, he LOST money and his strain of canola, which he worked 50 years to cultivate.

BUT, he created a very important legal precedent:

"The ruling did increase the protection available to biotechnology companies in Canada, a situation which had been left open with the Harvard mouse decision, where it was determined that a "higher lifeform", such as an animal, or by extension a plant, cannot be patented. This put Canada at odds with the other G8 countries where the patent had been granted. In Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, it was determined that protection of a patented gene or cell extends to its presence in a whole plant, even while the plant itself, as a higher lifeform, cannot be patented."

I'm pretty sure Schmeiser falls on the stupidity side. He really didn't have to be all that brave at all. His legal bills were paid by unwitting people who were more than happy to get sucked into his lies so long as he was 'fighting' someone they didn't particularly care for. Furthermore he profited greatly by all the publicity it created for him.

Despite Schmeiser characterizing himself as an unwitting victim, this is very far afield from what actually happened. If he actually did 'lose' money from the loss of his precious strain of canola, why did he knowingly and wittingly reseed his entire 1000 acre farm with the seeds produced from 3-4 acres of Monsanto spawned seeds that he knew were Monsanto spawned seeds? This defies all reason.

The legal precedent you cite helps Monsanto, BTW, and is little different than what plant patent law specifies in the US. But you are correct, it is very important legal precedent.

He was a farmer fighting a giant corporation determined to make a point and scare the hell out of the rest of us. It takes a 'smart' person to farm successfully anymore, stupid is believing he'd be unaware of the consequences of using Monsanto seed or that he did it deliberately. Some of those unwitting people were other farmers who knew damn well what he was going through, and had had trouble with Monstanto themselves.

See this post for further reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8902556&mesg_id=8909182

Which is wholly unsupported by anything remotely resembling a fact. But in your defense you ARE a self described expert so we just have to accept what you say is true, right?

Cheers!

bull nor the bull used in court against a man who did nothing wrong. 106% of the sample (which was cleaned, while Schmeiser's taken at the same time ..... was not) grew ........ amazing really. I've never heard of such a thing. Did you ignore the testimony of everyone who testified?

How 'stupid' do you think a farmer who's obviously smart enough to make a good living (which can be extremely difficult these days farming here in Saskatchewan) would have to be to risk it all by stealing seeds he had successfully done without for years? (Save the insults, they just show your desperation.) Do you farm? Have you had experience with Monsanto seed? Have you talked with neighbours about it, seen it growing wild in the ditches, around sloughs, along fence-lines? It doesn't take an 'expert' to understand how it can and does contaminate fields. Just having family, friends who've farmed all their lives, farming our own land and not being blind or deaf. Like I said, have Monsanto remove their unwanted plants and they and farmers won't have anything to worry about.

Here, you're big on ordering people to read:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers

Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers

Private Eyes are Watching You
"Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay"
"As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the 'seed police' and use words such as 'Gestapo' and 'Mafia' to describe their tactics" Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear.

Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them (examples <1> <2>). Farmers who get into the Roundup-Ready (RR) System lose their independence, and are obliged to sign a lengthy and restrictive agreement. <3>. What's more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers (and independent, non-GM farmers as well), taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation <4> <5>. It also maintains a hotline so farmers can turn in their neighbors for suspected violations.

According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers Monsanto pursues hundreds of new investigative leads a year, 600 in 2003 for example, aimed at farmers.

"The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments".

To be fair, there are undoubtedly a percentage of cases wherein the "violating" farmer signed the contract with full knowledge of what he was getting himself into. Equally without doubt however, there are many who either signed without reading (or understanding) the fine print, or who were perhaps given a bag of seed by a friend (not uncommon), or whose crops were pollinated by a neighbor's GM field - the HT trait going undetected (how many farmers routinely test for herbicide tolerance?) until a large portion of his crops are GM, or who perhaps gave the engineered seed a trial run one year then next growing season changed his mind only to find that the persistant stuff keeps coming back effectively putting him in violation, etc."

Maybe you can ignore this, too:

Saskatchewan Organic Farmers

File Lawsuit Against Monsanto and Aventis
CRAIG WONG / The Canadian Press 10jan04

SASKATOON—A group of organic farmers filed a class-action lawsuit on Thursday against seed giants Monsanto and Aventis for damage they allege was caused by genetically modified canola and to stop the introduction of genetically modified wheat.
"We have lost canola as a crop in our rotations because of genetic contamination, but we obviously cannot afford to lose wheat which is our largest crop and largest market," said Arnold Taylor, president of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.
"Our ability to farm organically is being threatened."
The lawsuit by Larry Hoffman of Spalding, Sask., and Dale Beaudoin of Maymont, Sask., was filed in Federal Court on behalf of all organic farmers in Saskatchewan.
It claims since genetically modified canola was introduced in Canada in the mid-1990s, it has been found growing on land for which it was never intended and few, if any, seed suppliers will certify their seeds as organic. The farmers also say introduction of modified wheat would doom their farms.
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2004/Monsanto-Saskatchewan-Organic10jan04.htm

Monsanto has come down HARD on anyone they think has "stolen" their precious "property". For every Schmeiser we hear about, there are probably a hundred who end up giving in to Monsanto's extortions.

Monsanto is quickly strangling traditional farming and trying to make a buck off it.

"Unwitting people"? Get real. there are PLENTY of farmers who HATE what corporate interests are doing to family farming.

You must be a city boy.

And I've posted about that on many occasions. Oops! Your bad. Chalk it up with the other things you've gotten wrong.

Thank you for your heartfelt concern anyway (which was actually nothing more than a weak attempt at ad hominem nonsense).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Your charge that Monsanto is "quickly strangling traditional farming and trying to make a buck off it." is truly hilarious. Monsanto doesn't force anyone to buy their products unless they try to steal it like Schmeiser, and his case is possibly the only one like it. The rest (or at least the vast majority) were cases where farmers violated the very agreement THEY signed with Monsanto. I suppose you think private companies should spend millions developing products that make farming more efficient and then give their products and intellectual property away. There's not too many companies that would stay in business that way.

Cheers!

"Harvest of Fear" (an oldie, but goodie)
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

"Monsanto Sends
Seed-Saving Farmer To Prison"
http://www.rense.com/general38/saver.htm

"Sealed Lips Keeps Monsanto in Control "
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/Monsanto-In-Control.htm

"Monsanto Still Suing Nelsons, Other Growers"
http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

"Haitian Farmers Commit to Burning Monsanto Hybrid Seeds"
http://www.thewip.net/talk/2010/05/haitian_farmers_commit_to_burn.html

"Scientists Say Seed Technology Agreements Stop Research"
http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/02/20/scientists-say-seed-technology-agreements-stop-research/

"Monsanto Continues Persecuting Farmers"
http://www.purefood.org/monsanto/seedsuits.cfm

"Monsanto's Seed Police Keep
Harassing US Farmers"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/bigbeans022602.cfm

"Monsanto’s latest court triumph cloaks massive market power"
http://www.grist.org/article/dominant-traits/

"Mississippi Farmer Fights Monsanto over Seed Saving"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/saveseedsuit.cfm

And these were remarkably easy to find. I could give you a hundred more if you wish.

Read them. Take your time.

I'll wait.

The search moon+green+cheese yields 331,000 results. So the moon MUST be made of green cheese!

Please continue. The entertainment value alone is well worth it.

Cheers!

Therefore, you didn't READ them.

C'mon, I want an argument over the relative benefits and harms that Monsanto does.

Post your own links! Let's have fun with this!

Cheers!

You're not the only one with teh google!

Imagine that.

And no, I'm not going to play your childish game of competing links, as much as you wish I would.

You go ahead and play with yourself though.

Cheers!

How about those European farmers whose crops were contaminated with seed from Canada, should they have been sued? Should the European countries who bought and distributed it have been sued? Maybe Canada should have .......... why yes, if profiting off Monsanto technology is illegal even if unintentional - as in Schmeiser's case - they should have been. Now why would Monsanto let the Canadian gov't off the hook like that? :sarcasm:

He stole Monsanto's seed, and refused to pay for it.

If so, then he would have paid Monsanto's blood money and kept his mouth shut. Schmeiser has lost more money in legal fees than it would have taken to pay Monsanto.

Besides, don't right-wingers agree with everything corporations do? He fought tooth and nail to deny Monsanto as much as he could.

And he didn't "steal" anything. Those genetically modified crops ended up on his land with no intervention by Schmeiser himself.

It was Monsanto's obligation to make sure it's crops didn't pollute other farmers' lands.

Schmeiser didn't lose any money. His legal bills were paid by those who were more than happy to get sucked into his lies and donate to his 'cause.' He actually profited greatly from all the publicity it produce and still continues to profit to this day. Who says crime doesn't pay?

Schmeiser didn't have to pay Monsanto anything. All he had to do is stop using Monsanto spawned seed when they told him to cease and desist. He had another chance to do so the following year when the very lawyer who was working for him also advised him to do so. Schmeiser continued to use seed he claimed he had 'rights.' That's why he got sued.

Monsanto has no such obligation you claim. Monsanto merely sells the seed to farmers and they use it to sow their fields. Any 'contamination' was the responsibility of his neighbor, but alleging such responsibility would be completely ridiculous. There's little doubt Schmeiser 'contaminated' his neighbors fields also. That's how farming works. When fields lay right next to each other, overseeding is inevitable.

Schmeiser stole Monsanto's patent because he used the seeds from those 'contaminated' areas (about 3-4 acres) across his entire 1,000 acre farm. He did so AFTER he knew what they were. He knew it because he and his hired hand tested those areas and discovered it. Not only that, he and his hired hand sprayed those areas with roundup to make sure his own strain of canola wouldn't 'contaminate' the Monsanto spawned plants so he could use the Monsanto spawned seed on the rest of his farm. That is what's known as patent theft, and Schmeiser is what's known as a crook.

Schmeiser took on poor Monsanto after they went for him for something that happens to thousands of farmers every year. European countries were furious, many farmers plowed their crops under after Canada sold them seed contaminated from a crop over a km away. Farmers all over the world are aware of how Monsanto, once it moves in, destroys native seed and forces many off their land who can't afford to use their seed, fertilizer and herbicides. Maize growing in Mexico is one example, and those farmers are now looking for work .... where do you think they're going to find it?

Percy Schmeiser is just one hurt by Monsanto, there are probably millions more.

I've never understood the need to demonize ordinary people who actually try to defend themselves. Come up here and talk to the farmers who knew and followed his case, the 'unwitting' as you called them earlier. Just stupid farmers who know nothing about the value of preserving the purity of their own seeds. Monsanto should have employees out getting rid of every bit of their volunteer plants, why the heck should farmers have to carry the expense of removing it and be fearful of being sued because it's there?

You do realize Monsanto has only filed 144 lawsuits over a period of 13 years, yes?

For further reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8902556&mesg_id=8909182

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_saved_seed_lawsuits.asp

Cheers!

Is that supposed to be an unbiased source?

Oh, and you seem to be VERY familiar with the site to get that info so FAST.

Kudos to your info-hunting skills!

Please tell me you are shitting me here and aren't series!

You actually have the nerve to post nonsense from every biased fruitcake that comes up on the first page of your google and then fault me for posting one link providing the ACTUAL statistics regarding Monsanto litigation (as if anyone can get that from anywhere else).

Jebus H. Christmas you are a piece of work.

Love,

MC

P.S.
More ad hominem fail noted (I bet you thought I'd miss that one).

'crook' farmers is duly noted though.

Nobody in the farm community is crying for Monsanto's "losses".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

For every one farmer that 'hates' Monsanto, thousands more buy their products. Why? Because they work. Imagine that.

Cheers!

And YOU'RE the one using the argumentum ad populam here.

Just because so many people USE Monsanto seeds is not evidence that they're "better" or "more popular".

It's that the farmers have NO CHOICE. They operate on a razor-thin margin and they like the stories told by Monsanto salesmen. And then they realize that these so-called "technology agreements" are handcuffs that OBLIGATE the farmer to buy their seed EVERY YEAR from Monsanto. And they're NOT allowed to save seed, like farmers have been doing FOR MILENNIA.

So the increased yields DON'T end up profiting the farmer any more - only the first year or two.

Of course they work - it's just that the price is TOO HIGH.

Your argument is that even though hundreds of thousands of farmers use Monsanto seed products that they are really just too stupid to realize your infinite wisdom that says they are really screwing themselves?

Brilliant!

And it ain't argumentum ad populam to suggest the fact that because thousands of farmers use the product lends credibility to the effectiveness of the product. That is what's called 'common sense.' (which seems to be a bit uncommon in this thread). Looks like someone needs to watch Rachel a bit more.

BTW, the concept of argumentum ad populam predates Rachel Maddow by only about 2,500-3,000 years or so. It's good that you're finally coming around, even though you haven't figured out what it means yet.

Cheers!

I NEVER said or even implied that they were stupid.

People are taken in by slick hucksters every hour of the day. And Monsanto is the slickest by far.

Claiming otherwise is just more of your absurdity.

The stewardship agreement spans all of 2 pages. You probably also think they are too illiterate to read that and only you have the one and only truth.

Monsanto has been selling patented seed for the last 15 years. If your silly assertion had any basis in reality, even the farmers you claim are too stupid not to fall for their "hucksters", would have probably figured that out about 12 years ago.

Here is the statement the farmer signs which you think they are too stupid to figure out:


http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Monsanto-Technology-Agreement2003.htm

Wow! They had better get a team of lawyers to figure out the small print!
:sarcasm:

But do keep trying. Perhaps someday you'll actually post something that makes the least bit of sense.

I'm not sure I'll be with you though. I have a limited tolerance for absurdity and you've far exceeded your quota.

Cheers!

"Monsanto hopes the grass will be greener with new crop of products

Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed maker, is pinning its hopes on a string of “game-changing” products as its long-time moneyspinner, Roundup weed killer, comes under sustained attack from cheaper generic versions…The two biggest new products, which have just been launched, are Roundup Ready 2 Yield soya beans — a second-generation version of Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant soya beans, which the company expects to be planted on between 8 million and 10 million acres this year. The other is SmartStax, a line of herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant corn, which is expected to be planted on more than 4 million acres.
The Times Business (8 Jan, p.62)
Soil Association comment: A report published in December shows that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. Farmers buying Monsanto’s new Roundup Ready 2 soybean seed in 2010 will pay 42% more per bag than they paid in 2009. Corn growers planting the new GM variety ‘SmartStax’, will pay more than twice as much as farmers planting conventional non-GM seeds. This is almost four times more than conventional farmers paid just ten years earlier.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said:
“This new data on the massive rises in the costs of GM seeds for those US farmers who now have no alternatives, coupled with steep increases in pesticide use, should serve as a stark warning to UK farmers. If GM crops are allowed here, UK farmers could find themselves contributing to another doubling of Monsanto’s profits.”
Read the full press release here

http://www.soilassociation.org/News/NewsItem/tabid/91/smid/463/ArticleID/257/reftab/258/t/Today-s-News/Default.aspx

the reason you're trying to make out.

in that millions who hate them and their products buy them anyway, thanks to their quasi-monopolistic market position.

The real monster is Monsanto & government ...hmmm oh yea that's the same thing.

... and are traceable to Monsanto, can the state require Monsanto to remove them?

It's not as though we have taken any realistic measures to prevent this from happening.

When 40-50% or more of the corn and soy crops are GM, what are the odds that the rest of the corn and soy crops will stay pristine? I'd say that probability is pretty damned small.

We here in the USA have been made into guinea pigs for the GM foods industry. We did not agree to be test subjects, but that is what we are. We consume GM foods without knowing it - in fact there used to be a law that non-GM foods could not put that on their labels. In other words they were not allowed to make true statements on their labels! Because it implied that there might be something wrong, or undesirable about GM.

Our priorities are all corporate, all the time. Shame, really.

And if Capitol Hill says "No," Monsanto lawyers will say, "Hey, buddy, this is le-ga-lese, and it'll stand up in any American or Canadian court, so hand over the keys to the White House - we've got a new Constitution to write, and a new National Anthem. Try this out for size: 'Mon-san-tooooo, Mon-san-tooooo, our lives we pledge to thee...'"

Yikes.

"We feel wild strains of canola that persist in the environment is good. Imagine if sometime in the future that Earth is struck by a meteor or comet that is made up of RoundUp® Herbicide...we would all be glad that our plants will still flourish."