What makes a farmer from a small rural community in Saskatchewan stand up to Monsanto? And possibly, win? Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports.
Percy Schmeiser, now in his early seventies, a soft-spoken, mild-mannered Canadian farmer from the small rural community of Bruno some 80km east of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, never dreamt he would be catapulted to the status of a contemporary folk- hero. He had been farming for 40 years when he was taken to court by biotech giant Monsanto in August 1998. The company claimed he had illegally planted its genetically engineered Roundup Ready canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege.
Schmeiser was not alone. Monsanto had accused scores of farmers of patent infringing on its genetically engineered seed. But, instead of settling out of court with Monsanto like the others, Schmeiser fought back. He had been sowing each crop with seeds saved and selected from the previous harvest for years, and had never purchased seed from Monsanto. Even so, he found more than 320 hectares of his land contaminated by Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola.
Schmeiser insisted that any Roundup Ready growing on his land was spread by wind or by grain trucks travelling on roads adjacent to his fields.
On 10 August 1999, mediation talks to settle the dispute 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 contaminating his fields with Roundup Ready canola. But Schmeiser’s lawsuit against Monsanto won’t be dealt with until the original lawsuit has been resolved. Little did he know what a long, hard battle he has taken on.
It is a battle for the seed, for every farmer’s right to save and resow harvested seed, to freely share and exchange without restriction, as farmers have been doing for at least 15 000 years since agriculture began.
The trial was heard in June 2000, in the Federal Court in Saskatoon. At the trial, Monsanto presented evidence from two dozen witnesses and samplers that Schmeiser’s eight fields were all more than 90% Roundup Ready. Monsanto had performed no independent tests, however; the tests were all performed in house or by experts hired by the company.
In defence, Schmeiser presented his own farm-based evidence, that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready, which was confirmed independently by research scientists at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Schmeiser’s defence also contained evidence that he did not knowingly acquire Monsanto’s product, nor did he segregate the contaminated seeds for future use or spray his canola crops with Roundup
But the Federal Court ruled against Schmeiser. Justice Andrew McKay upheld the validity of Monsanto’s patented gene. 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 this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed.
It didn’t matter how the Roundup Ready canola got to his fields. He was deemed to have infringed Monsanto patent, and was fined $15/acre x 1030 acres licence fee, plus the value of his entire crop, $105,000 (including fields that did not have any Roundup Ready canola), plus $25,000 for punitive and exemplary damages.
"Where does Monsanto’s rights end and mine begin?" Percy Schmeiser asked. He refused to abide by the judgement, and launched an appeal, which was heard in May 2002 in Saskatoon.
Unfortunately, all three judges ruled against him yet again. By this time, he and Louise, his wife of 50 years, had already spent $ 200 000 in legal fees. He had ceased to plant canola, for any canola crop he planted would belong to Monsanto.
Monsanto had kept up a constant campaign of harassment and intimidation all through the trial in 1999 and 2000. And in 2001, Monsanto brought a new case against Schmeiser for $1 million in ‘court costs’: $750 000 for their lawyers, $250 000 for ‘disbursements’ which included travel expenses, payments for expert witnesses and $15 000 ‘lawyer’s night entertainments’.
Undaunted, Percy Schmeiser took his case to the Supreme court, and in May 2003, when I caught up with him at the Biodevastation 7 meeting held in Monsanto’s hometown St. Louis, Missouri, he just got the good news that he has won his right to be heard in the Supreme Court. There were loud cheers in the hall.
Percy Schmeiser has been tireless in travelling the world to tell his story. Everywhere, farmers are fighting for their lives and livelihoods. Monsanto winning would be the very last straw, not just for farmers, for everyone. Schmeiser has come to symbolise our collective struggle against corporate serfdom. Just as independent scientists are oppressed and victimised, farmers are subject to the same or worse treatment.
Monsanto’s tactics are well known. The company gets farmers to sign away all their rights in an unbelievable technology contract. The farmer must not use his or her own seed, must buy seed and chemicals from Monsanto. Monsanto can send inspectors onto your fields for three years even if you grow the company’s crops for only one year.
Monsanto also openly advertises for people to tell on their neighbours if they are suspected of having GM crops without licence. The company’s representatives can trespass onto your fields even when you are not at home, or fly over your field and spray Roundup to see if the crop dies.
Immediately after Monsanto had obtained its judgement against Percy Schmeiser, the company had declared war on all Saskatchewan farmers. Schmeiser received hundreds of phone calls from farmers who have been contacted by Monsanto representatives and received demand letters saying that they have unauthorised GM crops growing in their fields and must pay so many thousands of dollars to avoid lawsuit. Many of the farmers who called Schmeiser were in the same circumstances: they never bought any seed from Monsanto or signed any contract.
But things may be turning Schmeiser’s (and our) way at long last.
In June 2002, a report from the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee said that the Patent Act should be amended to permit farmers to save and sow seeds from patented plants such as genetically engineered (GE) crops.
It also said that farmers who find GE plants growing in their fields through "the adventitious spreading of patented seed or patented genetic material or the insemination of an animal by a patented animal" should be considered as innocent bystanders and not be liable to prosecution.
While biotechnology developments are patentable, the report said the holder does not have "the right to market or even use the invention. This is because some applications of the technology may pose risks to human or animal health or to the environment, challenge the capacity of current approaches to protecting health and the environment and or raise other serious social and ethical questions that must be addressed."
The report suggests that the farmer be allowed to use the seed of a GE crop or the offspring of a GE animal for his or her own use but not for commercial purposes.
Better yet, in December 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the genetically engineered Harvard oncomouse is not patentable (see "Canada rejects patents on higher forms of life ", ISIS Report, March 2003 ). This opens the door to revoking patents on GM seeds, such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola. This could be the last nudge to get GM crops off our globe.
Help Percy fight Monsanto and get patents on life revoked for a GM-Free world. Make a donation on his website: [link to www.percyschmeiser.com]
Let the World Learn from North American Farmers' Experience with GMOs
I cannot fathom how British academics can still be quoted as saying that GM crops allow farmers to grow “high-quality food profitably”, in an “environmentally sensitive way”, and to attain “high yields while using less herbicide” [1] (see "UK Farmers Upbeat about GM Crops" Debunked, SiS 38). Roughly 99 percent of GM land on the planet is sown to just two traits - herbicide tolerance (HT) and Bt, which causes plants to synthesize their own insecticide. Nothing about quality.
Objective evidence of profitability is equally sparse, particularly if one factors in the lemon effect of lost markets due to the global rejection of GM. British growers might want to look for an article by Ian Mauro and Stef McLachlan at the University of Manitoba, Canada, due to appear in the journal Risk Analysis [2, 3] (Canadian Farmers’ Experience Exposes the Risks of GM Crops, SiS 38) This is the first ever publicly available survey in a peer reviewed journal of how Canadian farmers have been impacted by GM technology. It includes a quote by a Canadian farmer who said: “The loss of [European] markets due to GM had a huge financial impact. This was likely larger than the cost of controlling volunteers or benefit of easy weed control.”
This same 2003 survey of 370 farmers found that the greatest cited benefit among technology users (n=298) was operational, including timing and efficacy of weed control, facilitating farming of a larger landbase. Among 10 ranked benefits, increased yield was 6th and increased revenue ranked last. Among 10 cited risks, of greatest concern were loss of markets, loss of farmer rights under the Technology Use Agreement, higher seed costs, and lawsuits. Remember Percy Schmeiser (see Box)?
Schmeiser versus Monsanto
Percy and Louise Schmeiser are Saskatchewan canola growers and seedsavers. Monsanto accused them of patent infringement when the RR gene was found in some of the canola plants on their land. All allegations of theft or ‘brownbagging’ were withdrawn at the outset due to lack of evidence [4, 5] (Schmeiser's Battle for the Seed, SiS 19). The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reached a split decision [6], and the Schmeisers did not have to pay Monsanto anything. In 2007, the Schmeisers received the Right Livelihood Award, generally regarded as the alternative Nobel Prize for their “courage in defending biodiversity and farmers’ rights” [7].
The Schmeisers are not alone. By 2005, Monsanto had 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 [8] (Monsanto versus Farmers, SiS 26). The Center for Food Safety estimated that Monsanto has been awarded over $15 million by judgments granted in their favour.
So how about yield? Pay attention, British growers, to a recent USDA retrospective on GM in the US, which stated [9]: “Currently available GE [genetically-engineered] crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars.”
Likewise, researchers with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) summarized the Canadian experience with GM crops [10]. They cited a 2-year AAFC trial over 5 western Canadian locations where HT outyielded conventional canola weed control practices in just 6 of 30 comparisons, all at sites and years of particularly problematic weeds. They also cited evidence from public variety trials in Ontario, where much of the Canadian corn and soybean are grown, showing not an increase, but a 4 percent yield decrease in GM soybeans and no yield benefit from GM corn. So, let’s stop with the “higher yield” mantra and stick with the scientifically defensible evidence. Somebody might as well learn from our experience.
Less herbicide? Environmentally sensitive? As of 2008, a total of 63 weed biotypes in 13 species are now tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup Ready herbicide [11]. Of these, 41 were detected in soy or cotton fields starting in 2000. Of the 41, 32 were reported from the US, with the rest predominantly from Brazil and Argentina, paralleling global use patterns of HT technology. The evolution of weed resistance in GM crop fields has increased, not decreased, both the rate and frequency of application of herbicides, and obliged tank-mixing with other herbicides to cope with intractable weeds. According to Charles Benbrook [12], we now use more, not less, herbicide.
So if GM crops don’t actually do what was promised, apart from simplifying the process of weed control, then why are so many North American farmers growing them? The AFFC researchers reported [8] that planting choices for western Canadian canola producers had simplified down to one non-herbicide tolerant (HT) cultivar and 48 private sector HT cultivars (HT crops have been generated through both mutagenic and transgenic methods. Mutagenized HT crops include those tolerant to imidazolinone (IMI), while transgenic HT crops include those tolerant to glyphosate (e.g. RR), glufosinate ammonium (e.g. LL), and bromoxynil (BX)). Was this because they were all so pleased with what HT is doing for them, or was it just safer than becoming the next Percy Schmeiser? Next time British farmers or policymakers hear that 95 percent of western Canadian canola plantings are HT, they might want to ask themselves if this is a fate they want for themselves.
E. Ann Clark is an Associate Professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Great find, the speach is very down to earth and easy to understand. Well worth watching the vid :)
why is presentation more important than who we are.... I hate that shit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"....So I told my Mom I was a prostitute because I didn't want her to know I was Here doing This Shit !!! " "NANCY REED"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND, Hey- thnx for the gift ;) it goes above and beyond - I really appreciate it. Thank You.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 601353 (OP) 8/29/2009 12:17 PM
We hear nothing about this very important & alarming issue from the mainstream media. If Monsanto et al are allowed to continue their destruction of Canadian & American farmers and organic farming, we're looking at a world-wide famine of biblical proportions in the very near future.
In the US there are currently about 900 lawsuites against farmers by Monsanto. Once Monsanto et al take control of the seed supply and nothing is allowed to grow except GMO crops, the prices at the grocery store will skyrocket
Millions world-wide will die, yet Washington is doing absolutely nothing about it
It's evil
Last Edited by Cy Kotic on 8/29/2009 at 12:43 PM Whatever..
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
