Green

 

Percy Schmeiser stands up to -- and takes down -- Monsanto

03/18/11

  • digg
  • Delicious
  • Furl
  • reddit
  • blinklist
  • Technorati
  • stumbleupon

Read More: canola, monsanto, percy schmeiser, round up

Get VegSource Alerts Get VegSource Alerts

First Name

Email

Email This Story to a Friend




Percy Schmeiser, a farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada, spent a decade battling GM behemoth Monsanto. In the end, after many setbacks, he came away with a win of $660, which was the cost of removing Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" canola oil seeds off Schmeiser's land.

13 years ago Monsanto claimed it found its canola growing on Schmeiser's 1,030 acre farm. Though he had never puchased the seeds and had grown canola for 50 years, and planted seed he had saved from his own crops, Monsanto didn't care. They said somehow their genetically modified (GM) product had found its way onto his fields, and Schmeiser owed them money.

$400,000 to be exact.

Although Schmeiser didn't want the GM seed and didn't spray his fields with herbicide -- which is the only reason why you would use the GM seeds in the first place -- Monsanto decided to sue when Schmeiser wouldn't pay.

According to the Center for Food Safety, as of 2005, 186 farmers had paid Monsanto a total of $15 million in response to similar Roundup Ready claims. But Schmeiser fought back.

Schmeiser lost at trial and on appeal and was ordered to pay nearly $20,000 in damages and $150,000 for Monsanto’s legal fees.

But the Canadian Supreme Court didn't see it that way.  They ruled for Schmeiser. The court found that Monsanto's patent was valid, and that Schmeiser had infringed when the seeds were on his land, but it held he had gained no benefit from using the seed, and that he owed Monsanto nothing.

Schmeiser quit planting canola but, in 2005, he found more Roundup Ready canola in his fields. Monsanto had a standing offer to clean the stuff out of any fields where it was growing without the company’s permission. But they required farmers to sign a release that included an agreement never to discuss the terms under which the cleanup was done.

Schmeiser refused to be gagged by the release as a condition of getting Monsanto's GM canola off his land. When Monsanto wouldn’t change the release, he hired help to remove the invading canola and sent Monsanto the bill. Monsanto wouldn’t pay. So Schmeiser sued.

On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle. Monsanto paid the cleanup costs and Schmeiser signed a release—without the nondisclosure clause.

Isn't it nice when every now and then David beats Goliath?

CLICK HERE TO WATCH INTERVIEW WITH PERCY SCHMEISER



FACEBOOK COMMENTS:


32 Comments | Leave a comment

user-pic

VERY, VERY, VERY friggin' cool!!!! Yay Percy!!!!

user-pic

Apparently, Monsanto needs an ex-company supreme court justice like Clarence Thomas in Canada too. Yay for the little guy. Yay for Canada not falling to the pandering of Monsanto!

user-pic

He lost the case in the supreme court. While 99% of growers pay for their seed he stole it. The court found that he deliberately grew the canola and by spraying it with p
Roundup grew it tok make high % gm canola. He even hid the seed from the court at one point. If monsanto ever wins the few lawsuits they bring and they always do the donate the $ to the local community. They don't profit from the suit and a bet you won't find many of these suits today. This Percy guy now makes money lying about the case ---- monsanto could probably sue him again and win but he is a sad excuse for a farmer who couldn't make an honest living . of course you won't believe a word of this because you are brainwashed. Why do you think more than 3billions acres of gm crops have been planted many by small farmers ....because they provide value to the grower.why would farmer keep on paying more for gm seed if it cost more and wasn't worth it. Try too use your brain

user-pic

Welcome Monsanto representative! Thank you for the disinformation and libel! We hope you go out of business very soon one day, although we know you corrupt regulators and government officials so you are doing quite well in the US.

user-pic

Ah. A Monsanto lover. If you would please list references for your ascertations, we would be more than happy to read them. In the mean time, I suggest you watch Food Inc. and The Future of Food. Clarence... is that you? ;p.

user-pic

What ref would you like

user-pic

Food Inc is just a bunch of people who tried to steal technology -and got ;found out no wonder 5
Th ey are pissed off

user-pic

There are several documentaries that show that Monsanto aggressively goes after any farmer who has any of their seed. It is pretty easy to do when three farmers who use Monsanto GMO surround a farmer that does not. Monsanto will repeatedly send people out to test the non-purchasing farmer's crop until they find GMO crop that occurs from natural wind pollination. Then they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to force the farmer to pay restitution. The farmer is left with no recourse but to go out of business or to start buying Monsanto GMO. This is the state of the USA. This is what happens when you have former Monsanto lawyers sitting on the Supreme Court. The little guy literally gets screwed, and Monsanto gets more money. Such is the way of our corporate let democracy. There are no individual rights, only corporate rights. Go Canada for not being whores to the pandering of Monsanto.

user-pic

Documentaries made by biased people with an agenda. Its just not true that farmers are being sued just because they had some stray pollen pollinating their fields. Canola pollen can probably be spread by bees but soybean pollen is spread even less. You can't set to soybeans plants each other and expect them to pollinate each other - its a characteristic of soybean plants. If a farmer grows a GM crop they acquired they can't collect their crop and clean up the seed and then sell it to others (the biggest no no) or plant it back without violating the patent that a seed co has. Monsanto and others don't sue many any more its bad press. In Argentina noone pays for their GM soybeans - the seed co doesn't get anything for making the trait and so they don't sell the trait but 95% is GM. Since the big seed companies can't get their investment back they don't sell their best germplasm or even newer and better traits in Argentina . Since this puts Argentina farmers at a disadvantage to those who pay for the patented technology they now are prepared to pay and are negotiating how to do this fairly. But is some farmers ignore the rules they should not be allowed to benefit. Old percy would like you to think he just got his fields contaminated with GM seed or pollen. But that is patently wrong (excuse the pun) the courts heard the evidence and ruled he must have known what he was doing. he sprayed his fields deliberately with RoundUp herbicide to kill all the plants that weren't GM o h had pure GM grain and seed that he could keep on using. If you want I will find the lawsuit ruling inline. Again is Monsanto wins these cases they give the money to the local community for them decide what charity to give to - maybe scholarship fund or something -look it up instead of blindly believing. The US constitution allows patents and the patent on RoundUp beans expires in 2014 after that farmers can do what they want with RoundUp beans. Monsanto said they would even keep paying to keep international government approvals up to date for the next 10 years after that so that framers cam use it freely. If this was a pharmaceutical drug coming off patent there is no requirement to do this sort of thing. Someone has to make a generic and get it approved again.

Companies like Monsanto spend spend a lot on research that they get from profits from Gm crops ($3 million a day for Monsanto) add the other cos and thats probably $10 million a day - they could give that to their shareholders but like an tech company they know that they need to make their products even better than the last ...........

user-pic

Documentaries provide sources that one can self-verify.

Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto Lawyer who ruled in favor of copyrighting a genetic manipulation which set in motion billions in profit for Monsanto. He did not recuse himself from ruling out of a conflict of interest.

To suggest that plants do not pollinate by wind when farmers are in close proximity is crazy. That or my university level 4 years of biology is wrong.

Yes, roundup ready expires.... but who cares? Native plants are becoming immune and have acquired the gene. Too bad Monsanto can't sue individual plants or they'd be on their docket too. Hence the reason we have Roundup Ready 2.

Its a never ending process.

Until America grows a pair as Canada has done, ours will be a country ran by corporate America under the guise of democracy.

user-pic

First you need to understand that Monsanto is technically a new company - it was acquired by Pharmacia they gave up on chemicals and spun the chem off as Solutia. Then Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer - Pfizer actually kept of the pharma products that Monsanto had and spun off a new company that they called Monsanto - they could have called it Fred (and maybe they should have). Vlarence Thomas worked for Searle that the old Monsanto bought a long time ago and I think he probably ruled on genetics before Monsanto even started any seed company.

Trust me on the soybean pollination its a fact - if you want to cross pollinate soybeans specifically you have to remove the stamens from one plant so it can't self pollinate then paint the pollen from the other plant onto the emasculated plan. This is why you can't buy or use hybrid soybeans. Canola is pollinate by bees. They make canola seed by putting the plans in a cage and releasing the bees into the cage - I guess your 4 yours of biology was worthless - you should ask for your money back.

You say native plants have become immune - but if they have they have not become immune due to transfer of the GM gene. Weeds will become and have become resistant to all the herbicides used but it has taken a long time for the to become immune to roundUp. I assume you would love this so that Monsanto can't sell their herbicide (now made mostly by the Chinese. RoundUp ready 2 has the rounddup gene but also other genetics to increase yield if the farmer doesn't ant to benefit from this research expense they don't have to pay. You expose what you agenda really is - removal of corporate america - publicly traded companies that if they weren't there you would be writing on parchment paper -- why don't you go to Afganistan if you want to live in the dark ages.

Even you like native plants and if they gain resistance to herbicide wouldn't you like that?

RoundUp and a very few other herbicides are better than other herbicides -its like antibiotics - you use the amoxicillin and reserve the more expensive and more toxic for when the amoxicillin doesn't work. I assume you have no idea why farmers use roundUp ready - think about it there has to be a good reason --- the reason is its easy to use, it works and it saves more spraying with multiple herbicides most of the time. It allows them to conduct no-till farming - no till means no plowing which saves fuel and preserve soil structure and moisture (it will prevent another dust bowl. The stumble from the previous corn crop is left in the field . This provides over wintering habitat for birds (which is why Ducks Unlimited support the use of RoundUP ready. You don't care about this because you agenda is political and anti big business.

Monsanto and Syngenta are the main suppliers of veggie seed in the US. This is nonGM and they spend money to make better seed that produces more of the same land and make produce that spoils less and tastes better than the standard mass produced. I saw new sweet onions that normally can't be grown in CA in the winter and a new melon variety with much better taste. You can't label these companies with one label.

user-pic

I read that Clarence Thomas worked for 2 years for the old Monsanto before GM had even been invented but by working for Monsanto he probably did appreciate what scientific knowledge could do good and bad. Monsanto changed from a chemical company to a biology company. if you were to take a cup of Bt corn made by the new Monsanto and a cup of chemical made by the current Syngenta or old Monsanto and were forced to drink/eat one. I know which one I would choose. The BT protein is approved for organic use (just not as a GM plant) because is no unsafe amount of it you can consume (you can use Bt on organic food right up until harvest while the chemical insecticide is a known nerve poison and will kill you if ingested at that level. You have to get realistic and sensible with these things. There is a reason why we have current food rules in place. The FDA labeling rules are if it is relevant to safety label it if not don't because the non-revelant label swamp out the relevant ones and people ignore the safety ones. The UK now has so many labels on food they have to add extra packaging just for the labels. They encourage organic food and not GM produced food but they a=only produce 15% o their organic food and have to import it from areas that are lying when they say their food is organic. Now they try to use trade protection practices by labeling their food Made in Britain because they think people will pay more for it and keep hem in business but they can't make a living using antiquated technology. Only a few farmers can get away with charging more for organic food because eventually as supply increases they have to lower their prices - they only way to stay ahead is to create more and more rules to somehow exclude the rest - say raw milk is better for you when it is not and then only those that come to the farm can buy the raw milk and again charge more for the product. If raw milk became universal the price would be back down again and they would have to come up with another gimmic to sell at a higher price - it becomes a status symbol. A purity thing.---- Hilter liked that -- he liked organic, pure food and pure people. People like pure=bred dogs not hybrids - they are muts. Its not logical w=but people have to try to distinguish themselves and if they don't have a religious group to belong to they have to make one up. One made for the exclusive use of the rich -that custom made food not for the masses- if there is any lack of democracy here its people making food that only a few can afford. I work with people in Africa that are using technology to improve their lives and when you can't go to school because you have to weed the corn or pick insects of the corn safer and cheaper technology that allows them to go to school is a big deal

user-pic

Silly rabbit. Do you actually think you can knock my degree(s) and you provide no evidence.

Well, in academia we use evidence, not just 'cause I say so'.

The U.S. Federal government disagrees with you, specifically the corporate ran USDA:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612278
they show a 33% NATURAL cross pollination.

Furthermore: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/babt/v48n1/a05v48n1.pdf

and

http://sepdxseedbank.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/insect-and-wind/

both show soybeans can be bee and wind pollinated.

user-pic

by bees

user-pic

by bees how to explain 90% RoundUp ready in percy's field with a max of 6+%

user-pic

What farmer keps his seed in the back of a pickup truck under a tarp (it was in his neighor's shed I think) presumable so that he could run and hide it somewhere else - bit like a portable stealth tactic

Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.…tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of this 1,000 acres of
canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants.
From: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
“Mr. Schmeiser is a conventional, non-organic farmer. For years, he had a practice of saving and developing his own seed. The seed which is the subject of Monsanto’s complaint can be traced to a 370-acre field, called field number 1, on which Mr. Schmeiser grew canola in 1996. In 1996 five other canola growers in Mr. Schmeiser’s area planted Roundup Ready Canola.

61 In the spring of 1997, Mr. Schmeiser planted the seeds saved on field number 1. The crop grew. He sprayed a three-acre patch near the road with Roundup and found that approximately 60 percent of the plants survived. This indicates that the plants contained Monsanto’s patented gene and cell.

62 In the fall of 1997, Mr. Schmeiser harvested the Roundup Ready Canola from the three-acre patch he had sprayed with Roundup. He did not sell it. He instead kept it separate, and stored it over the winter in the back of a pick-up truck covered with a tarp.


63 A Monsanto investigator took samples of canola from the public road allowances bordering on two of Mr. Schmeiser’s fields in 1997, all of which were confirmed to contain Roundup Ready Canola. In March 1998, Monsanto visited Mr. Schmeiser and put him on notice of its belief that he had grown Roundup Ready Canola without a licence. Mr. Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all.

64 Numerous samples were taken, some under court order and some not, from the canola plants grown from this seed. Moreover, the seed treatment plant, unbeknownst to Mr. Schmeiser, kept some of the seed he had brought there for treatment in the spring of 1998, and turned it over to Monsanto. A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow-out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and by Mr. Freisen on samples supplied by Mr. Schmeiser did not support this result.

65 Dr. Downey testified that the high rate of post-Roundup spraying survival in the 1997 samples was “consistent only with the presence in field number 2 of canola grown from commercial Roundup tolerant seed” (trial judgment, at para. 112). According to Dr. Dixon, responsible for the testing by Monsanto US at St. Louis, the “defendants’ samples contain[ed] the DNA sequences claimed in claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the patent and the plant cell claimed in claims 22, 23, 27, 28 and 45 of the patent” (trial judgment, at para. 113). As the trial judge noted, this opinion was uncontested.

66 The remaining question was how such a pure concentration of Roundup Ready Canola came to grow on the appellants’ land in 1998. The trial judge rejected the suggestion that it was the product of seed blown or inadvertently carried onto the appellants’ land (at para. 118):

It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey . . . that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop.

67 He concluded, at para. 120:

I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants’ crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

68 In summary, it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto. The issue is whether this conduct amounted to “use” of Monsanto’s invention — the glyphosate-resistant gene and cell.

user-pic

Bees... AND wind silly. Let's not pick and choose.

Furthermore, in the Monsanto Employees' above attempts to discount the original article before we got off topic on the pollination of plants...

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/business/story.html?id=889b7cf8-bf35-4b6f-b398-e70cd66bf522

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7784

So, while he did get violated by Monsanto as they usually do to those who do not buy their seed, he had a moral victory against them.

Go Canada, Go the little guy. F Golliath!

user-pic

Forbes magazine recently admitted their mistake in naming Monsanto company of the year in 2009. They released an article stating they were “wrong on Monsanto … really wrong,” citing not only the problems with resistant superweeds but also investigations over antitrust issues and a potential flop in an expensive new variety of GM corn seed.
Monsanto was found guilty by France's highest court of false advertising, for claims that Roundup, its toxic weed killer, is biodegradable and leaves "the soil clean."
In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that “no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported.”
According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company’s behavior constituted “a long pattern of fraud.”
In 1999, the New York Times exposed that Monsanto’s PR firm, Burson Marsteller, had paid fake “pro-GMO” food demonstrators to counteract a group of anti-biotech protesters outside a Washington, DC FDA meeting.
In 1996, the New York Attorney General fined the company $50,000 for claims that Roundup was, you guessed it, biodegradable and good for the environment.
An EPA scientist found Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up the dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company’s behavior constituted “a long pattern of fraud.”
In response to the publication of Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking indictment of the pesticide industry, Silent Spring, Monsanto and other chemical companies launched a major p.r. offensive. The industry sponsored public forums with purported “independent” experts speaking on the benefits of pesticides; the company’s propaganda tools included publication of a pamphlet called The Desolate Years, which posited a world of massive food shortages resulting from over regulation of pesticides (the company continues to repeat this lie to this day, in countless ads and public statements suggesting that food shortages will result unless the world unquestionably accepts its genetic food experiments).
As the Washington Post reported,
"…for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as 'CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy' — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew."
A Monsanto-hired public relations firm, the Bivings Group, conducted an email campaign to pressure the science journal Nature to retract a paper showing that GMO corn had contaminated natural corn varieties in Mexico.
1991: Monsanto is fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut.
1997: The Seattle Times reports that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste to Idaho fertilizer companies, which contained the carcinogenic heavy metal cadmium, believed to cause cancer, kidney disease, neurological dysfunction and birth defects.
According to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Monsanto bribed at least 140 Indonesian officials or their families to get Bt cotton approved without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.5 million in fines to the US Justice Department for these bribes.
Six Government scientists including Dr. Margaret Haydon told the Canadian Senate Committee of Monsanto’s ‘offer’ of a bribe of between $1-2 million to the scientists from Health Canada if they approved the company’s GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) (banned in many countries outside the US), without further study and how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold in order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.
In 1966, court documents in a case concerning Anniston residents in the US showed that Monsanto managers discovered that fish dunked in a local creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as dropped into boiling water. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB level. But they never told their neighbours and concluded that “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges – We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”. In fact court documents revealed that the company withheld evidence about the safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that were being poisoned by their factory to keep their profitable dollars. On February 22nd 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty on six counts of NEGLIGENCE, WANTONESS AND SUPRESSION OF THE TRUTH, NUISANCE, TRESPASS AND OUTRAGE. Outrage
according to Alabama law is conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."
In Europe it refused to reveal the results of its own secret animal feeding studies, which revealed serious abnormalities to rats fed GM corn, citing CBI (Confidential Business Information) until forced to do so by a German Court. One of its Bt corn products (the only GM crop grown in the EU) was subsequently banned for planting in France and other EU countries based on the appraisal by Seralini of Monsanto’s own dossier.
In order to maintain its 1971 position that "PCBs are not and cannot be classified as highly toxic," Monsanto engaged Industrial Bio-Test Labs of Northbrook, Illinois, to do safety studies on its Aroclor PCB products. Seven years later, IBT Labs would be at the center of one of the most far-reaching scandals in modern science, as thousands of its studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent or grossly inadequate. One of IBT's top executives was Dr. Paul Wright, a Monsanto toxicologist who took a job at IBT Labs in part to supervise the PCB tests, and then returned to Monsanto. Wright was eventually convicted of multiple counts of fraud in one of the longest criminal trials in U. S. history - with his legal fees paid by Monsanto.


user-pic

I’ve got better things to do with my time and defend Monsanto chemical company but sionce you have thrown down the gauntlet I will persist “

Forbes magazine recently admitted their mistake in naming Monsanto company of the year in 2009. They released an article stating they were “wrong on Monsanto … really wrong,” citing not only the problems with resistant superweeds but also investigations over antitrust issues and a potential flop in an expensive new variety of GM corn seed.
FORBES WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT MONSANTO PROFITS WERE DOWN BECAUSE THEY DON’T MAKE SO MUCH MONEY FROM ROUNDUP ANYMORE THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS OFF PATENT AND THE CHINESE WITH GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES WAS MAKING A LOT AND DUMPING IT AROUND THE WORLD. MANY OF THESE FACTORIES ARE NOW CLOSED DUE TO POLLUTION ISSUES. WEEDS ARE NOT SUPER WEEDS THEY ARE SOME SOME WEEDS MAINLY IN THE SOUTH THAT HAVE BECOME RESISTANT (THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU USE A HERBICIDE- THAT’S ALL THAT HAPPENS TO THEM THEY RESISTANT THE HERBICIDE). THIS HAS NOT STOPPED THE USE OF ROUNDUP FAR FROM IT…MONSANTO COMPETITORS – THE CHEMICAL AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES LIKE SYNGENTA AND DUPONT AND BAYER WANT EVERYTHING TO THING THIS IS REAL PROBLEMS SO PEOPLE WILL BUY THEIR MORE EXPENSIVE AND MORE TOXIC HERBICIDES.

Monsanto was found guilty by France's highest court of false advertising, for claims that Roundup, its toxic weed killer, is biodegradable and leaves "the soil clean."
Agree they should have not said this in their advertising. It does biodegrade but not enough to claim it in a commercial and it does go inactive in the soil – you can plant plants right in after use. The US doesn’t allow anyone selling a pesticide to advertize that it is safer or safe – that’s the way they operate – now the French have the same rule.

In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that “no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported. According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company’s behavior constituted “a long pattern of fraud.”
I would like to see that this was prosecuted if it was true why wasn’t Monsanto prosecuted – maybe because its not true (at least about GM products

In 1999, the New York Times exposed that Monsanto’s PR firm, Burson Marsteller, had paid fake “pro-GMO” food demonstrators to counteract a group of anti-biotech protesters outside a Washington, DC FDA meeting.In 1996, the New York Attorney General fined the company $50,000 for claims that Roundup was, you guessed it, biodegradable and good for the environment. Did they pay it?
An EPA scientist found Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up the dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company’s behavior constituted “a long pattern of fraud.”
In response to the publication of Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking indictment of the pesticide industry, Silent Spring, Monsanto and other chemical companies launched a major p.r. offensive. The industry sponsored public forums with purported “independent” experts speaking on the benefits of pesticides; the company’s propaganda tools included publication of a pamphlet called The Desolate Years, which posited a world of massive food shortages resulting from over regulation of pesticides (the company continues to repeat this lie to this day, in countless ads and public statements suggesting that food shortages will result unless the world unquestionably accepts its genetic food experiments).

I am not going to argue about Monsanto’s legacy issues on chemicals but the new Monsanto is not actually the same company – the name is the same but the shareholder and employees are different
As the Washington Post reported,
"…for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as 'CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy' — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew."
A Monsanto-hired public relations firm, the Bivings Group, conducted an email campaign to pressure the science journal Nature to retract a paper showing that GMO corn had contaminated natural corn varieties in Mexico.
1991: Monsanto is fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut.
1997: The Seattle Times reports that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste to Idaho fertilizer companies, which contained the carcinogenic heavy metal cadmium, believed to cause cancer, kidney disease, neurological dysfunction and birth defects.
According to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Monsanto bribed at least 140 Indonesian officials or their families to get Bt cotton approved without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.5 million in fines to the US Justice Department for these bribes.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MONSANTO REPORTED TO THE SEC. THEY FOUND IT OUT – FIRED THE EMPLOYEE AND INSTITITUTED SOME SORT OF TRAINING PROGRAM …YOU SHOULD COMPLEMENT MONSANTO ON SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE – ALERTING THE GOVERNEMNT OF A PRACTICE THAT IS VERY COMMON IN INDONESIA AND WHEN THEY FOUND OUT THEY REPORTED IT. YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SINCE THEY ARE SO SECRETIVE (SO YOU THINK) THAT THEY WOULD HAVE COVERED IT UP) BUT THE OPPOSITE.

Six Government scientists including Dr. Margaret Haydon told the Canadian Senate Committee of Monsanto’s ‘offer’ of a bribe of between $1-2 million to the scientists from Health Canada if they approved the company’s GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) (banned in many countries outside the US), without further study and how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold in order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.

ANOTHER STORY – HOW COME THEY DIDN’T INVESTIGATE MONSANTO AND FINE THEM?


In 1966, court documents in a case concerning Anniston residents in the US showed that Monsanto managers discovered that fish dunked in a local creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as dropped into boiling water. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB level. But they never told their neighbours and concluded that “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges – We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”. In fact court documents revealed that the company withheld evidence about the safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that were being poisoned by their factory to keep their profitable dollars. On February 22nd 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty on six counts of NEGLIGENCE, WANTONESS AND SUPRESSION OF THE TRUTH, NUISANCE, TRESPASS AND OUTRAGE. Outrage
according to Alabama law is conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."
AGAIN I WOULDN’T DEFEND THE OLD MONSANTO BUT IT WAS MOPNSANTOI AND A NUMBER OF OTHER COMPANIES AND MONSANTO PAID A HEAFTY PRICE FOR NOT HANDLING THEIR WASTE AND NONE OF THE CHEM COMPANIES DYURING THE 1970 DO SO THE RIGHT WAY . THIS WAS BEFORE THE EPA TOOK BETTER CHARGE. PCB WERE CONSIDERED SAFE BY THE GOVERNMENT AND MONSANTO STOPPED MAKING THEM BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT MADE THEM A NO NO. THEY PROVIDED A LOT OF VALUE AS AN INSULATOR IN TRANSFORMERS- THEY ARE INERT AND WOULDN’ T EXPLODE BUT NOW PEOPLE HAVE TO USE THINGS THAT ARE NOT AS SAFE FROM EXPLOSION. PCBS ARE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY ARE SO INERT T- THEY STAY IN THE ENVIRONMENT A LONG TIME 9WHICH IS OK PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT ACTIVE WHEN THEY ACCUMULATE. AGAIN IF THE NEW MONSANTO HAD CALLED ITSELF FRED YOU COULDN’T ARGUE THIS BECAUSE NEW MONSANTO IS NOT OLD MONSANTO. NO ONE WHO WORKED FOR OLD MONSANTO WORKS FOR NEW MONSANTO AND THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE ALL NEW


In Europe it refused to reveal the results of its own secret animal feeding studies, which revealed serious abnormalities to rats fed GM corn, citing CBI (Confidential Business Information) until forced to do so by a German Court. One of its Bt corn products (the only GM crop grown in the EU) was subsequently banned for planting in France and other EU countries based on the appraisal by Seralini of Monsanto’s own dossier.
THE GM CORN PRODUCED BY MONSANTO AND OTHERS HAS BEEN USED IN THE US , BRAZIL , ARGENTIN AND THE EU FOR UP TO 15 YEARS NOW WITH NO EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY PROBLEM. THE ONLY HINT IS THE STALKS OF THE CORN ARE SO WELL PROTECTED AGAINST INSECT DAMAGE THAT THEY TAKE LONGER TO DEGRDE IN THE FIELD AND CATTLE LEFT TO GRAZE ON THE CORN STUBBLE CAN INJURE THEMSELVES – THE NON-BT CORN IS DEGRADED BY FUNGI WHILE GROWING AND PROBABLY DEGRADES MORE RAPIDLY IN THY STUBBLE. OF COURSE THE STALKS ALSO FALL OVER IN SEASON DESTROYING THE CORN HARVEST. THE EAR IS SO MUCH BETTER PROTECETD THAT FOOD COMPANIES LIKE THE GM CORN BECAUSE IT IS CLEANER AND HAS LESS AFLATOXIN.

THE SCIENTIFIC PANELS IN THE EU WHOI ARE NO FRIENDS OF MONSANTO OR ANY OTHER COMPANY HAVE CONSISTENTLY FOUND NO PROBLEM WITH THE SAFETY BUT THE POLITICIANS WOULD APPROVE IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS . YET THEY ALLWO THE GRIAN TO BE IMPORTED – IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS UNSAFE WHY WOULD THEY ALLOW THE GRAIN TO BE IMPORTED???????????????????? MEANWHILE THEIR FARMERS KEEP SPRAYING CHECMIAL INSECTICIDES AND THEY WONDER WHY THEIR BEES ARE DYING OFF. IF THEY DID HAVE GM CORN IN THE EU YOU WOULD BLAME BEE DIE OFF ON GM CORN.


In order to maintain its 1971 position that "PCBs are not and cannot be classified as highly toxic," Monsanto engaged Industrial Bio-Test Labs of Northbrook, Illinois, to do safety studies on its Aroclor PCB products. Seven years later, IBT Labs would be at the center of one of the most far-reaching scandals in modern science, as thousands of its studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent or grossly inadequate. One of IBT's top executives was Dr. Paul Wright, a Monsanto toxicologist who took a job at IBT Labs in part to supervise the PCB tests, and then returned to Monsanto. Wright was eventually convicted of multiple counts of fraud in one of the longest criminal trials in U. S. history - with his legal fees paid by Monsanto.

OLD MONSANTO NOT SAME COMPANY

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DEBATE THE GM ISSUE BUT DON’T EXPECT ME TO AGREE WITH USING CHEMICAL IN AG BECAUSE IT GENERAL DON’T. Some chems are necessary but as soon as we can get rid of them the better

user-pic

No you don't have anything better to do so let's do this:
Forbes magazine recently admitted their mistake in naming Monsanto company of the year in 2009. They released an article stating they were “wrong on Monsanto … really wrong,” citing not only the problems with resistant superweeds but also investigations over antitrust issues and a potential flop in an expensive new variety of GM corn seed.
"FORBES WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT MONSANTO PROFITS WERE DOWN BECAUSE THEY DON’T MAKE SO MUCH MONEY FROM ROUNDUP ANYMORE.."
Thanks for clearing this up. Forbes was just complaining about losing money??? Oh I thought it was because all of these crops that were supposed to be increasing yields in Africa that were more resistant to plant viruses and some even claiming to have more nutrients all failed.Some of the corn was 100% loss.And all those claims about the GMO crops doing so well? Lies by Monsanto scientist.This among other dubious practices was why Forbes retracted. As for resistant weeds, yes you do create a super weed when you have GMO plants that can take 10x the amount of herbicide. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, an Iowa State University weed scientist, told the New York Times.
So, with clear evidence that overuse of pesticides has created these strong, mutant plants, what does Monsanto suggest? More herbicide!
The “Roundup Ready Plus” program provides weed management recommendations for Roundup Ready crops by pairing products from Monsanto with those of competing companies like Valent and Syngenta.
According to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Monsanto bribed at least 140 Indonesian officials or their families to get Bt cotton approved without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.5 million in fines to the US Justice Department for these bribes.

"THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MONSANTO REPORTED TO THE SEC. THEY FOUND IT OUT – FIRED THE EMPLOYEE AND INSTITITUTED SOME SORT OF TRAINING PROGRAM …YOU SHOULD COMPLEMENT MONSANTO ON SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE – ALERTING THE GOVERNEMNT OF A PRACTICE THAT IS VERY COMMON IN INDONESIA AND WHEN THEY FOUND OUT THEY REPORTED IT. YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SINCE THEY ARE SO SECRETIVE (SO YOU THINK) THAT THEY WOULD HAVE COVERED IT UP) BUT THE OPPOSITE."
So an employee, not Monsanto, took his own money to bribe 140, yes, 140 Indonesian officials? And why would he take this upon himself? He just really didn't want that environmental impact assessment that bad huh?
As for the "new" Monsanto, "old" Monsanto, if they changed their name to "Fred" you couldn't argue it? Why? If your wife "Sheila" cheated on you yesterday but today calls herself "Nancy" could you not say anything to her? That's the new Nancy, not the old Sheila from yesterday.

As for the food safety there have been no safety studies conducted that prove GM foods are safe.
There are plenty of studies that show allergic reactions, lowered fertility increasing with each successive generation(After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.) ,increased still births in animals and smaller birth weights:In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller and could not reproduce.
In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.
When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.
An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.
Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.
In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.
Monsanto is considering using what’s known as terminator technology on a wide-scale basis. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
This solves their problem of needing “seed police,” but they are obviously looking the other way when it comes to the implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops, and often do.
You can also find other scientist that were fired,harassed,had their seeds and research destroyed after finding something negative about
GM food.
Monsanto(or maybe it was Fred here) was a producer of the horrific Agent Orange, the lethal herbicide and defoliant used by American forces in the Vietnam War for ten years up to 1971. It contained dioxins that have caused great damage to health among the civilians and troops exposed to it.
As a result, lawsuits were filed against producers like Monsanto and Dow Chemical with American veterans winning $180 million in compensation in 1984. Australian, New Zealand and Korean victims also won compensation, though not the Vietnamese.
Studies indicate the increased risks of cancer and genetic defects from exposure to dioxin, but Sir Richard Doll wrote to a Royal Australian commission investigating the Monsanto Agent Orange to say there was no evidence that this was the case. He did not mention that every day he was pocketing $1,500 from Monsanto.
Documents revealed this month also show that Sir Richard Doll was paid $15,000 by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Dow Chemical, another Agent Orange producer, and the British chemical giant ICI.
For this money, he produced an ''independent'' review that largely dismissed claims that the vinyl chloride used in plastics could be linked to cancers, apart of those of the liver. The World Health Organization challenges that assertion, but it suited his paymasters and they used his report to defend the chemical's safety for a decade.
Then there are terminator seeds. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
Not only would this mean that every farm in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply, but if the GM traits spread it could destroy agriculture as we now know it.Monsanto on Terminator has been mixed and confusing - simultaneously "making a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies", even stating "We stand by our commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile seeds. Period" whilst also stating "we 'constantly re-evaluate this stance as the technology develops'" and "we do not rule out their future development


user-pic

I hope this sets a precedent and that this is a step towards finally bringing Monsanto down. Go Vegan! Buy organic. Your money talks.

user-pic

I would hardly call a $660 judgment as taking down Monsanto, but it is nice to see a victory however small...now if only I can find some non GMO potatoes and soy milk!

user-pic

It may be a small amount but for Monsanto it means that farmers could be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants. This could be a big deal and could also drive investors away.

user-pic

Once again - there is no terminator gene in the market sold be anyone - show me any proof that there is

user-pic

My Buddah... Does no one know how to use Google?

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_Terminator_Technology

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

And that's the first three.

Of course it's not for sale. Who would sell it? Silly rabbit. In development? Yes... with who? Hmm.... the U.S. government. Gee. That doesn't make any sense at all (excluding the pandering whoring going on between the food industry and the FDA and Monsanto judges sitting on the Supreme Court)...

Well Billy, that would be one fine weapon wouldn't it? If you controlled the world's food supply, and no food could grow without buying it from you?.

Yes it is scary... (See, "The Road" movie).

Likely... probably not. They may eventually succeed with a few species of plants but there is so much diversity and variability in genetics and epigenetics etc that I don't see it happening.

user-pic

The terminator technology was being developed by the USDA 12 years ago and a cotton seed company was going to license it. Monsanto was thinking of buying the seed company. They did not at that point because the government didn't let them - then eventually about 6+ years later Monsanto did buy the seed company (they had to sell another cotton seed company they had so they wouldn't have too high a market share in cotton ). The cotton seed company didn't license the American government terminator technology. The stories you see are just rehashes of a story 12 years ago. Monsanto doesn't make even more than 35% of the corn seed in the US Pioneer (Dupont sells more . You guys just believe your own stories and noone ever bothers to complain - but I can't take this bullshit fiction get your stories right otherwise you will look like a silly fool.

user-pic

This is from Monsanto's web site

Is Monsanto Going to Develop or Sell "Terminator" Seeds?
Through modern biotechnology, it may be possible to develop crops that will not produce viable offspring seeds or that will produce viable seeds with specific genes switched-off. Gene Use Restriction Technology (GURT) includes a range of technologies employed at the genetic level, designed to limit the use or spread of specific genetic material in agriculture.

Sterile seed technology is a type of GURT in which seed produced by a crop will not grow. Dubbed “terminator technology” in the popular press, many have expressed concerns that sterile seed technology might pose a threat to the livelihood and way of life of small landholder farmers in developing countries. These farmers have saved seeds to plant the next crop for centuries.

Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way.

It’s true that GURTs offer certain benefits. GURTs can be used to limit the use or spread of specific genetic material in agriculture. For example, technology developers can invest in beneficial traits and utilize GURT to ensure specific traits are available only to farmers wanting to pay for and use the traits. GURTs also help with the stewardship of biotech crops by offering a means to ensure that biotech genetic material is present only in intended agricultural settings.

Monsanto sees both the positive and negative aspects of GURT and understands there are some uses which would not involve sterile seeds but which would be beneficial for small landholder farmers. For instance, it may be possible to create varieties where farmers can save and plant seeds, but the offspring seed does not carry the biotech trait.

If Monsanto should decide to move forward in the area of GURTs, we would do so in consultation with experts and stakeholders, including NGOs. Our commitment to protecting smallholder farmers and our promise not to commercialize sterile seed technology will carry forward with these developments, should they occur.

BY THE WAY YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT MONSANTO SEED AND POLLEN AND SPREADING EVERYWHERE AND THEN COMPLAIN THAT THEY MIGHT USE TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY. IF THEY HAD TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR SEED YOU SHOULD BE PLEASED. TRY NOT TO TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR FACE IT DOESN'T LOOK PLEASANT. EITHER GM IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD ENCOURAGE TERMINATOR TECH TO AVOID SPREAD OR IT IS GOOD AND NOT WANT TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY. HOW CAN IT BE BAD AND TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY ALSO BE BAD....THINK FOR A MOMENT

user-pic

more information:
Open Letter From Monsanto CEO Robert B. Shapiro To Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway and Others
October 4, 1999
Dr. Gordon Conway
President Rockefeller Foundation
420 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10018-2702

Dear Gordon:

I am writing to let you know that we are making a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed "Terminator." We are doing this based on input from you and a wide range of other experts and stakeholders, including our very important grower constituency.

As you know, sterile seed technology is one of a class of so called "gene protection systems." This is a group of technologies, all still in the conceptual or developmental stage, that could potentially be used to protect the investment companies make in developing genetically-improved crops, as well as possibly providing other agronomic benefits. Some would work by rendering seeds from such crops sterile, while others would work by other means, such as deactivating only the value-added biotech trait. One of the sterile seed technologies was developed and patented jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta & Pine Land, with which we announced our intent to merge in the spring of 1998.

Last April, after hearing concerns about the potential impact of gene protection systems in developing countries and consulting with a number of international experts and development leaders, we called for a thorough, independent review of gene protection systems. We also pledged not to commercialize any of them until that review was completed and we had responded to the issues raised.

Since then, however, we have continued to listen to people who have a particular interest in sterile seed technologies, including the concerns you expressed to our Board in June. Though we do not yet own any sterile seed technology, we think it is important to respond to those concerns at this time by making clear our commitment not to commercialize gene protection systems that render seed sterile.

It is also important to understand that the technical and business utility of sterile seed technology is speculative. The specific technology over which Monsanto would gain ownership through its pending merger with Delta & Pine Land is developmental, at least five years away from any possible commercialization, and may or may not prove workable in a commercial setting. The need for companies to protect and gain a return on their investments in agricultural innovation is real. Without this return, we would no longer be able to continue developing new products growers have said they want.

Monsanto holds patents on technological approaches to gene protection that do not render seeds sterile and has studied one that would inactivate only the specific gene(s) responsible for the value-added biotech trait. We are not currently investing resources to develop these technologies, but we do not rule out their future development and use for gene protection or their possible agronomic benefits.

For this reason, we continue to support the open, independent airing of all of the issues raised by the use of gene protection systems to protect the investment companies make in agricultural innovation. We understand, for example, that the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences is planning an international study of these issues. We renew the pledge we made in April that we will not make any decision to commercialize a gene protection technology until a full airing of the issues is complete and we have responded publicly to the concerns that are raised.

We are fully committed to modern biotechnology as a safe, sustainable tool for farmers and an important contributor to the future success of agriculture in meeting the world's needs for food and fiber. The technology has already brought important benefits to growers and the environment after just a few years of commercial application. We are working hard to build on this success.

We also recognize that biotechnology, like any new technology,raises issues that must be addressed. We appreciate your involvement with these important issues and the perspective and expertise you contributed at our June Board meeting. We find significant value in engaging stakeholders and the expert community in active dialogue on issues surrounding biotechnology and the future success of agriculture. I look forward to continuing our dialogue with you on the many issues and challenges that lie ahead.

Sincerely,
Robert B. Shapiro
Chairman and CEO
Monsanto Company

user-pic

Why don't you concentrate on the good aspects of natural foods rather than the perceived bad aspects of other sources or a specific company. Its like bitching about your friends to make yourself look good - its not very compelling - it suggests you have weak arguments for the benefits of natural foods--which is probably true....the best thing going for the in favor argument is BETTER FLAVOR because you have no evidence for it being safer.

user-pic

1.) You're using MONSANTO to defend.... Monsanto? Yes, judge, I believe the murderer... he says he did not kill the woman, so it must be true.

2.) You propose a catch 22 in saying we can't hate GMO and the terminator technology together. Um... no. Silly rabbit. GMO sucks ass at all levels. If Monsanto didn't own Congress and the Supreme court, it would likely not be as prevalent as in the EU. As it is now, the bought politicians routinely buy into the "American's aren't prepared to know" presentation from the companies. Yes. We can say that both GMO sucks ass and spreads to non-desired species (see NON-MONSANTO links above), and that Terminator technology sucks as well...

If your lover Monsanto can't control the spread of Roundup1 gene and has to create Roundup2... they likely will not be able to control terminator technology.

3.) Your argument would have at least some validity if you 1.) Would spit out Monsato's reproductive organ, and 2.) Would use sources other than Monsanto to defend... Monsanto.

user-pic

Expert Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, reveals shocking facts about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Studies have produced thousands of sick, sterile and dead laboratory animals; thousands of people linking toxic and allergic type reactions to these foods and damage to virtually every system in the laboratory animals studied. Despite this alarming evidence 70% of the foods in our supermarkets have genetically modified organisms in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7rXIujvXGc&feature=player_embedded

user-pic

why is 70% food gm - actually it all is and it is still there because it doesn't do any harm. You just keep quoting stories about GM food but no real data that it is actually harmful to people - dont you think that i it was harmful someone anyone would have brought a lawsuit to stop it. Th e only lawsuits against Monsanto on this are against the USDA about their process of approval and a weird pre lawsuit by the organics trying to encourage their sales. You can't actually win a sue unless you have been injured and far from being injured or damaged organic growers own their very existence to GM crops. They use GM crops as an excuse for people to pay more for organic food -the organics should be paying companies like Monsanto advertising fees

Leave a comment