“Monsanto’s out-of-court settlement with Schmeiser ($660.00) is pennies with the potential to break the bank:
– the owner of the seed is responsible for the contamination.
– the farmer doesn’t have to do the clean-up; s/he can hire it done.
– the owner of the seed will pay the bill.
Now who wants to be the owner of herbicide-tolerant wheat, in 3 years after it starts to show up on summerfallow fields, in shelter belts and in gardens? … There’s money to be made, and not by the seed-owner!”
I love it! Thank-you Percy and Louise Schmeiser!
——————
CONTENTS
(1) SIGNIFICANCE OF MONSANTO’S FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE SCHMEISERS OVER HERBICIDE-TOLERANT (RoundUp Resistant) CANOLA
(2) DETAILS OF THE SCHMEISER ACTION THROUGH SMALL CLAIMS COURT
(3) LETTER-TO-EDITOR RE BASF’S HERBICIDE-TOLERANT “CLEARFIELD” WHEAT
(4) STRATEGY FOR BASF’S WHEAT
===================
(1) SIGNIFICANCE OF MONSANTO’S FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE SCHMEISERS OVER HERBICIDE-TOLERANT (RoundUp Resistant) CANOLA
A new development falls into our laps! Yeee-es! A day for celebration.
And it is very helpful against BASF’s wheat.
Many thanks to Ian Mauro (Winnipeg) and to Linda Cheu (Edmonton) for:
Schmeiser win over Monsanto’s RR canola through small claims court.
Many thanks to the genius and persistence of Percy and Louise Schmeiser!
To me, the most wonderful accomplishment of Percy and Louise, through this latest development: they have broken the mafia-like intimidation capability of the chemical-biotech corporation Monsanto. There is now a way around the “we’ll take you to court” bullying and manipulation.
Old-timers in our network know it well.
The mafia uses the threat of broken bones to silence people. Monsanto uses the threat of the court system (OUR court system) to break people financially. They have been able to use the courts to silence anyone who gets in its way, in both the U.S. and in Canada.
The reason that Percy and Louise Schmeiser were able to persist through to the Supreme Court of Canada when Monsanto took them to court was because of determination, but also because hundreds of people chipped in to help pay the legal costs.
Then Percy & Louise took Monsanto to court – small claims court. Monsanto settled out of court, in spite of the fact that Percy & Louise refused to sign a “standard release form” (a gag order). Percy and Louise have tested out a successful new strategy. The irony is that a $660.00 small claims settlement is monumental in its implications..
Hallelujah! The need for deep pockets has just changed! The money barons are brought to their knees. Read on …
======================
(2) DETAILS OF THE SCHMEISER ACTION THROUGH SMALL CLAIMS COURT
(contract = “standard release form”)
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:25 PM
Subject: [gene-allies] Percy and Louise Schmeiser win!
(NOTE: I (Sandra) edited the first line of the original text of this message to reflect input from Ian “The Schmeisers did initiate a lawsuit, however, after reading a little more, I now realize that they actually settled out of court for the $660. So while victorious, there wasn’t really a “legal precedent” set, which is important to point out.”)
Hi folks:
Percy and Louise Schmeiser have won what started as a small claims court case against Monsanto over GM canola contamination. Monsanto settled out-of-court.
This arguably sets the first precedent anywhere in the world for liability regarding cleanup costs associated with GM contamination. I just spoke with Louise and she said that after winning “Right Livelihood Award” this now seals the deal in their victory against Monsanto.
Here’s a short summary of their three court cases – yes three! – with Monsanto over GM canola contamination:
1) The original contamination in 1997 that led to the Supreme Court;
2) a follow-up contamination of Louise’s organic garden by GM canola, which the Schmeiser took Monsanto to small claims court, but the case was dismissed. Percy had photos, witness testimonials, and spray tests as evidence but the court said that because he did not have genetic testing done, the proof was inconclusive; and
3) another contamination event of one of their fields that was originally infested with Monsanto’s GM canola. They asked Monsanto to clean up the plants. Monsanto came, tested the plants, determined they were indeed Roundup Ready, and said that they would clean up the contamination only if the Schmeisers signed a contract. The contract gagged the Schmeisers from speaking about the contamination and made it impossible for them to seek damages for any “past, present, or future” harm caused by the GM canola “volunteers”. The Schmeiser refused, had the GM canola cleaned up, and sued Monsanto in small claims court for $660 expense and won! (INSERT (Sandra): an out-of-court settlement)
Percy and Louise are obviously very pleased and believe that their decade long struggle with Monsanto is over. Amazing work indeed.
-Ian
ps. here’s a link to the story
– re the “standard release” form that the Schmeisers refused to sign. They won. AND removed the manipulative capability of the “standard release form” to silence people and keep information from spreading. Good on them!
=====================
(3) LETTER-TO-EDITOR RE BASF’S HERBICIDE-TOLERANT WHEAT, Saskatoon Star Phoenix
Letters-to-the-editor of every newspaper are important. Typically, we shine a different light on these developments than do Canwest newspapers for example. Which is good. The article they published about Monsanto’s settlement with the Schmeisers offers us the opportunity to tell the story from another perspective. Hopefully they will publish this. Please feel free to cut, copy and paste text from this email, as you see fit. No need for us all to invent the wheel. /S
SENT: March 21
CHEMICAL GIANT BASF’S HERBICIDE-TOLERANT WHEAT
RE: Schmeiser gets cheque from Monsanto, SP, Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Monsanto and Schmeiser got tied up over herbicide-tolerant canola. This spring BASF is advertising its herbicide-tolerant wheat on rural radio stations. (BASF is an international chemical company from Germany with revenues in the billions of dollars. Like Monsanto it designs plant life that will not die when sprayed with its chemicals.)
In 2003 thousands of people from across Canada fought down Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant wheat. I, like all those others, do not want my food designed by the criterion that it can be sprayed with chemicals and survive.
The standard for food crops should be whether the new variety makes a positive contribution to the nutritional needs of the population. Wheat is a centre-piece of our food supply.
Another reason why Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant wheat was defeated:
– Plants that are resistant to chemical applications eventually become super weeds. Super weeds have to be attacked with stronger chemicals. (We know the danger of Nature’s evolutionary process through the development of super-bugs that are resistant to existing antibiotics.)
In Canada there are more acres sown to wheat than to any other crop. That this crop should become one sown to corporately-owned, herbicide-tolerant seed is not acceptable. The disease and developmental problems associated with existing chemical loads on the environment argue against it, as does the development of resistant plants.
The Government (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) licenses crops for the Canadian food supply. The CFIA is paid by us, to serve the public interest.
“Clearfield wheat”, designed through a process called “muta-genesis”, serves the interest of BASF.
BASF can learn from the Schmeisers. Monsanto (rival to BASF) came to the Schmeiser’s place to address contamination by Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant canola. They tested the plants, determined they were indeed Roundup Ready, and said they would clean up the contamination only if the Schmeisers signed a contract (a “standard release form”). The contract gagged the Schmeisers from speaking about the contamination and made it impossible for them to seek damages for any “past, present, or future” harm caused by the GM canola “volunteers”. The Schmeisers refused, had the GM canola cleaned up, and sued Monsanto in small claims court for their $660 expense. They won – Monsanto paid out-of-court.
Percy and Louise Schmeiser have removed the manipulative capability of the “standard release form”, a vehicle to prevent information from spreading.
Monsanto is notorious for using the court system to silence those who get in its way. Legal costs can easily bankrupt a farmer. Schmeiser’s victory through small claims court lights a way for others.
Monsanto’s out-of-court settlement with Schmeiser ($660.00) is pennies with the potential to break the bank:
– the owner of the seed is responsible for the contamination.
– the property owner doesn’t have to do the clean-up; s/he can hire it done.
– the owner of the seed will pay the bill.
Which is as it should be.
Now who wants to be the owner of herbicide-tolerant wheat, in 3 years after it starts to show up on summerfallow fields, in shelter belts and in gardens? … There’s money to be made!
Sandra Finley
Leader
Green Party of Saskatchewan
Etc.
========================
(4) STRATEGY FOR BASF’S HERBICIDE-TOLERANT “CLEARFIELD” WHEAT
a. CFIA (Cdn Food Inspection Agency, part of Agriculture Canada)
Crop varieties have to be registered by the CFIA in order to be grown legally in Canada.
The President of the CFIA is Carole Swan, (613) 221-3737.
Carole by google:
(i) http://geo.international.gc.ca/latin-america/peru/whats_new/default-en.aspx?id=1949
“A Canadian delegation headed by Carole Swan, Associate Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and made up of government and private sector representatives participated in the 6th APEC TEL Ministerial Meeting hosted by Peru from May 29 to June 3rd, 2005.”
(ii) http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/1999/19990623/html/sor246-e.html
“.. hereby approves the exclusion made by the Public Service Commission of Carole Swan from the operation of that Act, … on her appointment to the position of Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board ..”
Etc.
Carole was in meeting when I phoned. My message for her was returned by Stephen Yarrow.
He remembers us from two battles:
– against the introduction of seeds designed to be sterile (terminator technology) and
– against Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant wheat.
Stephen noted the objections to herbicide-tolerant crops, for later discussion with Carole.
I spoke of high levels of disease and developmental problems associated with chemical exposure and that herbicide-tolerant crops increase the chemical load on the environment.
Stephen asked “How do you respond to the need for farmers to make money (from this new crop variety)?”. I didn’t have to finish my reply – Stephen answered it for himself. The graphs of farm income make it very clear: it is pure propaganda that the technology of the chemical (and now seed) companies will put money in the pockets of the farmers. The products are designed to put money into the pockets of BASF, Monsanto and Dow Chemical.
They do that very well, at the expense of everyone else.
I didn’t pursue the BASF Wheat too far with the CFIA at this time. The wheat is already registered.
We need more urgently to get the message to farm communities so that the wheat isn’t seeded. We haven’t much time. We can come back to the CFIA later. For now, they’ve been put on alert. If they are serving the public interest, which is their job, they will de-register herbicide-tolerant crops.
b. BREAST CANCER GROUPS
There are well-organized runs for breast cancer in rural communities (guess why?!).
I think that these women will see the UN-necessity for herbicide-tolerant wheat.
c. “VITERRA” IS THE SELLER OF BASF’S HERBICIDE-TOLERANT (CLEARFIELD) WHEAT.
The address and phone number for every one of the places where Clearfield wheat can be bought is listed on BASF’s website. I am in the process of compiling the list for Saskatchewan. I was thinking that if everyone whose name started with “a” phoned the seller of BASF wheat in a town that starts with “a” and so on, we could easily reach the sellers. I could send you the Saskatchewan list for phoning. While you were making your call, I could get the Alberta list done, etc. We could cover off a fair number of the sellers.
d. OTHER GROUPS THAT WILL PITCH IN
We are overlapped with lots of other groups. Many of them will want to pitch in on this battle. In particular, the anti-GMO groups, the people who are fighting for proper labeling of food, the food security people, the organic movement, etc. etc. will want to participate. More in another email.
d. THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY
Some people won’t be able to help in the local fight to prevent BASF’s wheat from ever getting planted.
But they will help bring pressure on the Government.
The groups from India, the U.S. and Canada who intervened on the side of Schmeiser (Monsanto vs Schmeiser) in the Supreme Court case are fighters to keep non-industrial food and seed in the hands of citizens, out of corporate-control. I expect that some of them will pick up on BASF’s wheat in Canada. A win in any jurisdiction is helpful to the world-wide effort.
We are connected to these players through various groups. More later.
= == == = == = = = = ==
At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:34:56 -0400, Eric Darier wrote:
A report on agrofuels in Europe done by the European science research body (JRC) has released a report VERY critical of agrofuels. Some of the conclusions:
* GES : it cannot be asserted that the net effect would be positive
* Security of supply: There would be a positive effect, but its value is small compared to the costs
* Employment creation: The net employment effect of the programme would be insignificant
* The costs of using biofuels outweigh the benefits of doing so.
* Biomass (NOT LIQUID AGROFUELS FOR CARS) saves much more fossil fuel and GHG emissions in other sectors.
* The costs of EU biofuels outweigh the benefits.
A MUST READ : http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_biofuels_reportpdf
Eric
Eric Darier
Responsable de la campagne Agriculture
Greenpeace