GM Foods and what they are doing to us...

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm
Monsanto
vs. U.S. Farmers Report

New: November 2007 Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers Report Update!

2005 report documents Monsanto's lawsuits against American farmers, revealing thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies.
(clik on link >PDF)

http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=27046
2005
(excerpt)
BROOKLIN, Canada, Jan 14 (IPS) - Agribusiness giant Monsanto has sued more than 100 U.S. farmers, and its "seed police" have investigated thousands of others, for what the company terms illegal use of its patented genetically engineered seeds, and activists charge is "corporate extortion". ...................
....According to the report, court awards are just a fraction of the money the company has extracted from farmers. Hundreds of farmers are believed to have been coerced into secret settlements over the past eight years to avoid going to court.

Farmers generally lack the knowledge and the legal representation to defend themselves against Monsanto's allegations, Mendelson said at a press conference Thursday.

"Often, there's no proof offered but farmers give up without a fight," he said.

Very little is known about the terms of these settlements, but in one instance, a North Carolina farmer agreed to pay 1.5 million dollars, he said.

Monsanto has a budget of 10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers, the report said.

The tactic has proved very successful. In 2004, nearly 85 percent of all soy and canola were GE varieties. Three-quarters of U.S. cotton and nearly half of corn is also GE.

Monsanto controls roughly 90 percent of GE soy, cotton and canola seed markets and has a large piece of the corn seed market.

The issue of GE crops and small farmers has featured prominently at the World Social Forum (WSF), an annual gathering of civil society groups from around the globe that has called for a moratorium on biotech agriculture.

Monsanto, in particular, has been singled out for "forcing GE crops on Brazil and the rest of the rest of the world", according to the environmental group Greenpeace.

This year's WSF takes place Jan. 26-31 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and will present a new chance for anti-GE campaigners to compare notes on the successes, and setbacks, of the movement in the last year.

So why don't farmers just buy non-GE seed? North Dakota farmer Rodney Nelson says there is actually very little conventional seed left to buy anymore because seed dealers don't make nearly as much money from them.

Monsanto charges technology use fees ranging from 6.25 dollars per bag for soy to an average of 230 dollars for cotton -- more than three times the cost of conventional cotton seed. The company argues these fees are necessary to recoup its research investment.

The other problem is that some non-GE seed is now contaminated by Monsanto's patented genes, Nelson said.

Monsanto sued Nelson and his family in 1999 for patent infringement, charging they had saved Roundup Ready soybean seeds on their 8,000-acre farm. Two years of legal hell ensued, Nelson said. The matter ended with an out of court settlement that he is forbidden to talk about. "We won, but we feel forever tainted."

The report contains a number of similar individual stories that often end in bankruptcy for the farmer.

Even if a farmer decides to stop using Monsanto seeds, the GE plants self-seed and some will spring up of their own accord the following year. These unwanted "volunteers" can keep popping up for five or more years after a farmer stops using the patented seeds.

Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.

In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbour's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.

The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.

Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.

"Monsanto should held legally responsible for the contamination," he said.

Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."

"It's a corporation out of control," says Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of CFS.

Unfortunately, he adds, there will be no help for farmers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration as key positions are occupied by former Monsanto employees and the company has a powerful lobby in Washington.

To help farmers facing lawsuits or threats from Monsanto, the CFS has established a toll-free hotline to get guidance and referrals: 1-888-FARMHLP

Among other actions, the CFS supports local and state-wide moratoriums on planting GE crops, and laws to prevent farmers from being liable for patent infringement through biological pollution. (END/2005)"
 
Mods: feel free to remove if this is considered "flaming". I think it's appropriate given the content of this thread (seedcorn asked for substantiation of Monsanto's "shady business"), but won't be hurt if you don't...



Indonesian bribing convictions
In January 2005, Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m fine for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002, in a bid to avoid Environmental impact assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002. Monsanto faced both criminal and civil charges from the Department of Justice and the SEC. Monsanto has agreed to pay $1m to the Department of Justice and $500,000 to the SEC to settle the bribe charge and other related violations.[21]

Monsanto fined in France for false advertisingMonsanto was fined $19,000 dollars in a French court on January 26th, 2007 for misleading the public about the environmental impact of its record selling herbicide Roundup. A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use. Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" by the European Union. Monsanto's French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros. Both defendants were ordered to pay damages of 5,000 euros to the Brittany Water and Rivers association and 3,000 euros to the CLCV consumers group.[22].​
 
Last edited:
Quote:
In Europe it is illegal to use hormones in farm animals

That's excellent, thanks for letting me know that. I am glad that someone else knows worldwide law; I can only speak authoritatively on ours.

I eat buffalo (American Bison) from a local ranch. They don't use hormones on bison, so that suits me well.

I see you're from south of me!
smile.png
If you'd like to try the meat from this ranch, and are coming north a little ways, you can get it back down there intact with dry ice. It's deep frozen to start with. I was able to get some down to a friend in Bakersfield.
smile.png
 
Just out of curiosity...I do wonder what you Ag Science folks have to say to those of us who DO have a scientific education and STILL think that GMOs and many Monsanto products are a bad bad bad bad bad idea. Pretty much all your points have been directly refuted with facts, and what remains is the complaint that you are feeling misunderstood by the whole world. I'm sorry you feel misunderstood, but that doesn't really move us any closer to real solutions to the problems cited.

Having met many ex-Ag Science people in my industry (biotech pharmaceuticals), I can say that they are at least as picky as I am about food, if not more. And that's saying something! Could be that I am only seeing fairly disgruntled people--after all, they left Big Agriculture to go into the oh-so-respected field of Big Pharma (so you see, I know all about feeling put-upon and misunderstood by consumers). But I have seen enough Monsanto refugees to know they are not ALL just a bunch of angry people.

Yes, if you eliminate the use of many Ag Science products (GMO crops, various pesticides and herbicides), you will not get as good yields out of marginal land that is being monocropped and wasn't all that great for farming in the first place. Yes, you will see food prices rise to be comparable with those of other First World countries. Yes, that is harsh on any economy.

It's also possible that the current food economy we have created, which is based on GMO corn and on an assumption of cheap, neverending oil, is not sustainable and needs a drastic revision to prevent social upheaval.

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible to manage food resources and economics in such a way that does not assume a cheap supply of oil, or that uses multi-year forecasting instead of one-year and quarterly forecasting? I sure hope not, because we have many historical economic models we could use for successful food management, which are not fashionable but certainly worked in times of scarcity. Are you saying that the current state of toxicology science is the pinnacle of human achievement, 100% correct at all times, and has never ever been manipulated for anyone's profit? I don't think any scientist with any intellectual integrity can say that--science is always growing and changing, that's the point of it really, and there is considerable evidence that governments have often manipulated facts at the behest of lobbyists and personal or political agendas.

I think us smart cookies can all put our heads together and come up with some better ideas for how to manage our food supply than Monsanto et al. have proposed so far. There are some interesting suggestions in the Feb 08, 2008 issue of Science, good reading.

Oh, and a note on industry/gov't having the same people working with them: Actually, I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea. If you think the antics that companies get up to legally is bad, you should see some of the dickens they get up to behind closed office doors. It'd turn your hair grey. I think that unless you've seen some of it with your own eyes, you wouldn't believe that anyone would stoop that low, that anyone could be such scum-in-a-human-suit. And it really helps to have a personal experience of being the low person in the food chain, working under such critters.
 
Seachick on the Canola issue, YOU ARE CORRECT. Did not Monsanto lose that case and pay damages to farmer? As far as shady, good luck if you are going to use that standard for working with government people--that's standard policy in third world countries. think they aren't bribed? Why do you think reps, senators, presidents go on trips, meals, etc. w/companies, including the public held companies. Did you see the fine Monsanto paid in French court? $19,000. Do not confuse my arguments with "I agree with everything Monsanto does" or for that matter that I even like Monsanto. It's that glysophates are a MUCH better solution than we've used in past. To farm w/o chemicals, is not realistic with todays economy.

Simple question, will you hold ALL companies to the same standards that you hold Ag companies to (& call them shady) and NOT do business with them?

Rosalind do you know why people leave Ag to go to Pharma? $$$$$$ Same pill that my wife takes was prescribed to my dog (same manufacturer and same strength). Wife pays $90/month, I paid vet $25 which included the office call. Think my wife wasn't MAD????? Don't get me started with what pharma companies do...........

Back to GMO's and glysophate. Don't like them, easy solution--pay farmers to grow crops like you want them grown, pay companies to process food the way you want. Just don't expect them to be at the current prices. Easy way to figure a starting cost, start w/$5,000 per acre ground, $750 potash, $800 nitrogen, $1000 P, go from there.

Quick question, what county in USA outlaws GMO's?
 
do you know why people leave Ag to go to Pharma?

Oh, yes. My co-workers go on, at length, about why working in pharma is such an improvement. Remember, I work in R&D--so, taking into account the differences in the R&D sector, I can see why a woman or a non-white scientist would want to leave the Midwestern Big Agriculture companies for comparatively egalitarian urban Big Pharma research job. Look up the number of EEOC complaints against Big Ag and you'll see what I mean. But to compare apples to apples, after cost of living is adjusted for, white male Ph.D. scientists don't make much more in Big Pharma than they would in Big Ag.

My co-workers did not leave for money--they will be the first to tell you that. They left because they felt that their working conditions were so hazardous that they were intolerable. They left because their job was to convert leftover chemical weapons into a marketable product. They left because they could not do their jobs in good conscience, despite the purest of intentions (feeding hungry people). They feel that in comparison, Pharma offers better working conditions in terms of safety and respect for data integrity. Now, if you want to point out that it doesn't take much to have more integrity than Big Ag, and Big Pharma only has a sense of honesty and integrity when you're comparing them both to Lucrezia Borgia or Edward Pritchard, well, I will concede the point...​
 
Oh geesh - this thread has degenerated. I'm out...but before I go LOL...
tongue.png


I'm for people being healthy, I KNOW SOME chemicals are bad, but all you gotta do is LOOK (or read) the completely emotional responses here to see what has happened to this subject.

And one last thing - before anyone goes citing EUROPE for their Ag standards why not take a look at exactly which countries around the world have had issues with disease ridden livestock and which ones haven't?? There are a few hundred people over in the UK with prion disease who would laugh at the idea that the UK system (European Ag) is better.

European Ag and US Ag - not the same thing, not the same climate, not the same species, not the same feed. It is apples and oranges. Things that work over there are not always solutions to problems over here.

I agree with Seedcorn - I'm sure farmers would be more than happy to stop using scientifically altered seed stock if consumers were willing to pay them enough to feed their own children.

Anyway - if I offended anyone that was not my intention - I am educating that's all.

And I might add - I take offense to people who criticize me for being scientifically educated. I put no one down here and I expect to be treated the same way. Just because I have a degree in this stuff doesn't give anyone else the right to ridicule all my hard work. You can take my opinion or not - but it IS a PROFESSIONAL opinion.

Thanks.
 
...the links/articles I posted and factual information contained within them are professional (and not opinions)
 
Last edited:
Quote:
In a very small segment of the AG sector that is exactly what is happening. Producers are contracting farmers to raise feed crops the way they want them raised. I can point to two small dairies (one owned by friends) that do this also, and they have remained profitable businesses. So I would have to say it can be done. The question is; " Are we ALL willing to bite the bullet and take it to that level?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom