Monsanto has to Accept Full Responsibility for Genetic Contamination

Monsanto has to Accept Full Responsibility for Genetic Contamination

www.globalresearch.ca

One hour before the court hearing was scheduled on March 19, 2008 Monsanto accepted all demands of Percy Schmeiser as well as their responsibility for the contamination of Schmeiser’s fields. Monsanto does not only pay for the damage but also accepts that Schmeiser reports and informs the public about the background and that he can express his opinion and position about this case in public. The acceptance of responsibility by Monsanto as the owner of the patented Transgene for the contamination of neighbouring fields opens the path for all farmers in the world to demand compensation by Monsanto.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.percyschmeiser.com

It's about damn time these cutthroat &$%# take one in the keyster rather than screwing over another farmer (which is the usual outcome).

The precedent which has been set here represents a massive victory for farmers worldwide.

[Percy Schmeiser:]
I believe that Monsanto will have a hard time in pursuing patent infringement against other farmers. They are now going to have to prove that a farmer profited from having RR canola in their field. The Court noted that my profits were the same whether I had conventional canola or RR canola, so I find it hard to see how Monsanto can say in any future case that the farmer made more money because of their product. This decision may have removed the "teeth" from their patent.

In the past, in cases where a farmer's fields were found to have been contaminated with stray GM seed, the Monsanto lawyers sue the farmer for patent infringement and in many cases even theft of property. In this case, the opposite was found, that as the legal owner of the seed DNA, Monsanto was responsible for having contaminated the farmer's crop with their own product.

[Percy Schmeiser:] I also believe that Monsanto will face huge liability issues down the road. The Court determined that they have ownership to the plant and that I was infringed by having it in my field. With ownership comes responsibility and I assume more lawsuits will be filed against them for the contamination of farmer's fields. I was always concerned about this lack of responsibility that Monsanto took for the unconfined release of RR canola in western Canada. I think the Court's decision will force them to be held accountable for it now.

Let's all hope the farmers are able to turn the tide now and give Monsanto a bit of their own medicine in court!

www.globalresearch.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is good news. This is good, but it makes you wonder why they didn't want to go to court. They must have done a little cost/benefit analysis first, and I wonder how much they reckon they have saved by settling.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by applebiter]

Now would be a good time to create a civil movement dedicated to sueing monsanto into oblivion, as not only would it help the environment but it would be the destruction of one of the main elitist tools for population control and extermination, as well as a major financial blow (although the elites make money out of nothing, so this won't make as big a diference as the first point).

Monsanto is easily worse than any of the big armaments company, it's basically biological warfare and it's products are on par with anthrax. Why not use all those lovely anti terrorism laws against it too?

Very good news, star and flag.

Roundup Ready (RR) crops have greatly increased crop yields worldwide. Weed competition can greatly reduce yields, and this very safe chemical (glyphosate) is effective at controlling any weedy plant that does not have a woody stem. It's probably the single largest innovation in agriculture since the advent of 2,4-D and the Green Revolution. "Better living through chemistry"

The LD-50 of Roundup is higher than table salt....you could literally drink it without being harmed.

Weed competition? The natural role of most of the plants we call weeds is to remineralize the soil. You might be true about one or two crop yields, but the in the long term all you will get is used out soil that becomes infertile. You can probably get more yield with medieval crop rotation than you can with any monsanto product.

As for toxicity, no thank you, I will not drink that crap if I can avoid it. There is a common pattern with scientists and the human body, and that is they almost constantly underestimate the toxicity levels and side effects. I guess I would too if I were an irresponsable a-hole and my job depended on it .

Read "The Secret Life of Plants", it will show you why the whole modern pesticide based approach to agriculture is a second tier way of doing it that is starting to bite us in the ass. Industrialized agriculture will only work if instead of these artificial compounds being thrown around haphazzardly we go back to the natural processes that produce clean and nutritious food. I have noticed a decline in the the overall quality of supermarket foodstuffs in my lifetime.

Don't defend monsanto, it's one of the worse corporations earth and is being used as a tool for population reduction and control. Defending it, even if only out of ignorance, is unexcusable.

Any company engaged in clandestine, possibly of a dubious nature, experimentation would benefit from settling out of court.

Investigation of their operations could be a detriment to their mission.

reply to post by dizziedame


You got it right, they have more to the issue that they want the general public to know.

This companies has been able to run rampant and unrestricted for many years they have more dirt in their heals than they want the courts to disclosure.

That is why they are taking a huge gamble with setting out of court.

They are nothing than dirty bastards.

""Weed competition? The natural role of most of the plants we call weeds is to remineralize the soil. You might be true about one or two crop yields, but the in the long term all you will get is used out soil that becomes infertile. You can probably get more yield with medieval crop rotation than you can with any monsanto product.""

A weed is ANY plant growing where you don't want it. Removing weeds increases yields in ANY situation. Most farmers practice crop rotation continually.

From your comments, I will assume you are a chemophobe, and I doubt I could change your mind with logical retorts.

I'm not defending Monsanto, I'm defending Roundup. Roundup is off patent, and many companies now produce it. Monsanto first marketed it, but it was originally developed by 3M, and Monsanto bought the rights. Monsanto develops RR varieties of crops.

Supermarket foodstuffs are not grown for quality and taste so much as it is for trucking and shelflife. If you want truly tasty vegetables, grow them in your backyard.

This is huge news. I hope from this point on lawsuit after lawsuit subjects Monsanto to the death of a thousand cuts.

Monsanto are destroying the future of our children's children.

Thank you for posting this. Recently I have been thinking of what Monsanto does to affect the small farmers, but I confess I need to do more research.

Monsanto is rolling the dice and hoping this one small incident will go unnoticed. I hope the farmer posts this all over the world, and Monsanto gets whacked with a class action suit that cripples them.

reply to post by starcraft


Chemophobe. What talking points memo did you pull that one out of? Chemicals don’t make for ‘better living’ they only allow for greater profits. There are plenty of natural ways to increase yield without killing the soil and thus the nutritional value of the food. You’re right about home grown veggies tasting a lot better, and they’re better for you too, if you take care of your soil.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This court decision is good news for sure, lets hope it begins an avalanche of cases against Monsanto and ADM. Something tells me that this is just the one step back to be followed by two steps forward though.

edit for same old

[edit on 6-7-2008 by resistor]

reply to post by starcraft


Chemophobe eh? Cute.

I'm just saying there are valid natural ways to do agriculture and the end result is better food. You don't have to blitz the crops with chemicals, you have to bend over and pick them. Or invent a machine to do it for you. Targeted chemical extermination is a more dangerous approach, because all living things are DNA based, on the same tree of life, and spill over is all but unavoidable. Is this not in itself a logical point? Or are you a naturaphobe?

Point taken about roundup not being a monsanto only product though, I was unaware of that, but I am still skeptical about the benefits of it's use, on principle.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Zepherian]

I was so glad to read this, this morning. I just posted a link to the article on one of my gardening forums. Thanks for posting!

Chemophobia....The IRRATIONAL fear of chemicals.

I'm a soil scientist...careful with the broad, irrational statements based on ignorance. Chemophobia with its' basis in misinformation and paranoia is not treatable with knowledge and common sense unfortunately. I won't respond any more. Arguing with these folks is quite unfair, they're not equipped.

FYI...you can't "kill" soil....LOL. You can destroy soil structure, through mismanagement, but chemicals have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by starcraft
Chemophobia....The IRRATIONAL fear of chemicals.

I'm a soil scientist...careful with the broad, irrational statements based on ignorance. Chemophobia with its' basis in misinformation and paranoia is not treatable with knowledge and common sense unfortunately. I won't respond any more. Arguing with these folks is quite unfair, they're not equipped.

FYI...you can't "kill" soil....LOL. You can destroy soil structure, through mismanagement, but chemicals have nothing to do with it.

Yes, by all means please go elsewhere with your unsupported claims and false superiority. A superior argument is self evident. Only a fraud has to continually flatter themselves and personally attack others.

I believe a thread on Monsanto claims of their chemicals and how safe they are should be considered.

But this thread is actually on the Genetic contamination and is impact on other farmers fields, be purposely or just negligent.

Actually I find interesting that this dirty corporate bastards were able to blame farmers for the contamination and even take their fields in the base that they were making profits from Monsanto's contamination.

That is the best free testing they were getting from the unwilling farmers.

reply to post by starcraft


If you will oversaturate soil with ordinary salt - you can make it barren. Salt is chemical. So to think that heavy metals and toxic chemical waste cannot damage plants ability to grow - is very weird coming from a scientist.
As for general news - this is great! So it could be done. That person, probably without a lot of resources, fought giant corporation and won. Really good news. Lot of respect for him and whoever supported him.

But more to the point, Monsanto DOES in fact provide much higher yeilds in crops such as corn.

IE - Higher yeilds per acre for a product that provides much needed food stuff as well as a new renewable energy source worldwide.

I do not condemn them for trying to protect their patented product line, as the black market even in countries where farmers 'protest',.... flourishes.

Reguardless of the implied discepencies.

Yes, NaCl, literally dumped onto soil would inhibit many plants ability to grow. You wouldn't kill the soil however, the overload of Na would literally deflocculate( or, destroy the structure) of the soil. As the Na leached or exchanged with Ca, the soil would return to its original state in time. As an aside, there ARE plants that can grow in salt-effected soils.

Applying an EPA approved pesticide per label directions will not "kill" soil.