Monsanto’s Controlling Interests
Farmers that
buy Monsanto GM seeds such as Roundup Ready seeds must sign a lengthy and
restrictive agreement whereby they can only use the seeds for one season of
crops. Monsanto is serious in protecting
its seed patents to the point of suing farmers if they save seeds from the
original crop to plant successive crops, or if they give seed samples to fellow
farmers. They will also sue if a GMO
crop is found on a farmer’s land even if that crop ended up there through cross
pollination or by the wind. These are
all examples of natural pollen drift. Animal and bird deposits also occur.
Monsanto has
an army of private investigators that gather information about farming
activities. This is an extensive network of spies that rely on using tactics
such as secret videotapes, infiltration of community meetings and agents that
pose as surveyors to gain access to farm lands.
A hotline (1-800-ROUNDUP) is maintained so farmers can turn in their
neighbors for suspected violations.
Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75
devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The legal deck of
cards is stacked in their favor. Below
are some of the farmers and seed businesses that sought legal remedies. Keep in mind that many must settle out of
court to avoid being litigated until broke.
An investigation uncovered the fact that one Monsanto
agent forged the signature of Anthony Parr, an Illinois seed-cleaner, in an
effort to convict him of "aiding
and abetting" farmers by processing their seeds for replanting. Seed
cleaners remove chaff and weed seed from
harvested seed. Parr said he was not aware that he cleaned Monsanto’s seed. Nevertheless,
he racked up over $25,000 in legal fees before even setting foot in a courtroom
and, like so many others, reluctantly settled out of court. Parr lost almost 90
percent of his former customers, who were afraid that associating with him
would lead to prosecution against them as well.
Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a
farmer suicide every 30 minutes (known as GM suicide), 5 million farmers are now suing
Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US
dollars). The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that
led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’,
Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles
with ridiculous royalty charges. The farmers state that Monsanto has
been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale
from “renewal” seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from
the previous year’s harvest.
Decided May 13, 2013.
The Supreme Court held that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer
to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent
holder’s permission. The Court was
unanimous in favor of Monsanto.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
Appeal Filed May 17, 2013
The appeal involves the USDA's regulation of Roundup
Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a plant genetically modified by the Monsanto Company and
Forage Genetics International to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate
(Roundup). At issue was the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by APHIS, which
unconditionally deregulated RRA on the ground that it was not a "plant
pest" within the meaning of the term in the Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7
U.S.C. 7701-7772. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because
the statute did not regulate the types of harms that plaintiffs complained of,
and therefore, APHIS correctly concluded that RRA was not a "plant
pest" under the PPA. Once the agency concluded that RRA was not a plant
pest, it no longer had jurisdiction to continue regulating the plant. APHIS's
lack of jurisdiction over RRA obviated the need for the agency to consult with
the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, and to consider
alternatives to unconditional deregulation under the National Environmental
Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.(NEPA) Accordingly, the district court properly
entered summary judgment in favor of defendants.
The appeals panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of federal officials, corporate seed manufacturers and industry trade groups. The panel also held that APHIS did not violate the Plant Protection Act by not considering, sua sponte, whether Roundup Ready Alfalfa was a noxious weed.
Sept 2012. Two groups of plaintiffs in these
consolidated cases have brought actions challenging the APHIS interim decision
partially deregulating a genetically engineered variety of sugar beet. APHIS
has since issued a final decision fully deregulating the sugar beets, and the
challenged interim decision has expired. For the reasons explained herein, the
Court will dismiss these actions as moot. This dispute concerns Roundup Ready sugar beets which are
genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate-based herbicides.
24 Feb 2012
Organic Seed Growers And Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement
Association International, Inc.; Ocia Research And Education Inc.; The
Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Center for Food Safety; Beyond
Pesticides; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners
Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association Of New York; Northeast
Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic
Farming Association of New Hampshire; Northeast Organic Farming Association of
Rhode Island; Ct Nofa; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural
Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Florida Certified Organic
Growers and Consumers Inc.; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains
Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic
Dairy Producers Alliance; Midwest Organic Dairy Producers
Alliance; Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance;
Canadian Organic Growers; Manitoba Organic Alliance; Peace River Organic
Producers Association; Union Paysanne; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative;
Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!;Family
Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-Toconsumer Legal Defense Fund; Weston A.Price
Foundation; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute; Fedco Seeds Inc.;Adaptive
Seeds, Llc; Sow True Seed;
Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds;
Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., Llc; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC;
Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Wild Garden Seed;
Cuatro Puertas; Seed We Need; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild
Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Inc.; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms
LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California
Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin Del Alma; Ron
Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Full Moon Farm,
Inc.; Common Good Farm, LLC; American Buffalo Company; Radiance Dairy; Quinella
Ranch; Nature’s Way Farm Ltd.; Levke And Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards,
Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; Larhea Pepper; Paul Romero; Brian Wickert;
Bruce Drinkman; Murray Bast; And Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.,Plaintiffs are
farmers and seed businesses, both organic and non-organic, as well as related
membership organizations. Plaintiffs do not want to use, grow crops raised
from, or sell transgenic seed, which is seed that has had genetic code of
another species introduced to it.
Monsanto’s motion
to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction was granted.
2011. David and Don Runyon own a 900-acre Indiana farm. The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent
investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and
later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an
anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were
growing on their property.
California's
Mendocino County as of March 2, 2004 became the first county in the nation to
ban the growing of genetically altered crops and animals via ballot Measure H despite a massive campaign
against it from the usual suspects.
Nov 2010. Monsanto
alleges that Boggs sold and/or transferred "saved" bin-run Roundup Ready seeds to one or more third parties, and sold, transferred or
otherwise supplied newly purchased
soybean, corn, and/or cotton seed to one or more third parties without
authorization or license. The Court
favored Monsanto.
On January 14, 2010, Monsanto Company and Monsanto
Technology filed suit against defendant Kevin Slusser, an Arkansas farmer, alleging Slusser used Roundup Ready
seed produced from Roundup Ready soybean
seed planted in 2008, or earlier, which he had saved, without authorization
from Monsanto, in violation of Monsanto’s patent rights.
2000-2010. GEERTSON SEED FARMS, an Oregon business;
TRASK FAMILY SEEDS a South Dakota business v Monsanto
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 07-16458 D.C. No. CV-06-01075-CRB
A federal
appeals court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California)
decision upheld a nationwide ban on GM alfalfa until the proper environmental
impact statement (EIS) was completed by the USDA. Monsanto took the matter to
the Supreme Court.
Monsanto had
sued Phillip Geertson, a producer of organic alfalfa seeds in Oregon. Geertson claimed that Roundup Ready alfalfa
could spread its genes to neighboring fields and that would prevent farmers
from marketing their produce as organic as well as prohibit them from exporting
to countries that prohibit GM crops.
The law under
which organic farmers were allowed to challenge USDA’s oversight of the GM
alfalfa is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Docket No. 09-475 U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
Monsanto v Geertson Seed
Farms http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/09-475/
June 21, 2010 Reverse and Remanded
So much for
the NEPA and the law of the land.
June 2010. The
case is procedural in that farmer defendants failed to produce information
requested by Monsanto. Sanctions against
them for failure to comply were requested.
Information which Monsanto sought included the identity
of each state and county in which [defendants] have produced a commercial
agronomic crop each year; the total
number of acres of cotton planted by [defendants] each year; the total number of acres of Roundup Ready®
cotton planted by [defendants] each year; the total number of acres of Roundup
Ready® Flex cotton planted by [defendants] each year; the total number of acres of Bollgard® cotton
planted by [defendants] each year; the total number of acres of Bollgard® II
cotton planted by [defendants] each year;
the total number of acres of any other cotton variety planted by
[defendants] each year; the identity of each field where you planted Roundup
Ready, Roundup Ready® Flex, Bollgard® and/or Bollgard® II cotton during the
2003 through 2009 crop years by [Farm Service Agency] farm number, tract number,
and field number.
It seems that if Monsanto had a REAL case, they would
already know this information…..
2009. Monsanto won
this case which struck an expert witness that was not in their favor.
Defendants are farmers who planted Monsanto’s patented
Roundup Ready soybeans that they saved from the previous year’s crop. This violated
Monsanto’s patent rights. On March 16, 2009, partial summary judgment in favor
of Monsanto on its patent infringement claim was granted. The case on
Monsanto’s breach of contract claim and patent infringement damages, including
the issue of willfulness was set a few months later. Monsanto requires farmers
to pay a technology fee for Roundup Ready soybeans in addition to the price of
the seed and to sign a licensing agreement which permits them to use the seed
for a single growing season only.
2008. Loren David
appealed from the final judgment of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. On April 20, 2006, the court held that David knowingly
infringed U.S. Patent 5,352,605 (the “’605 patent”), and awarded Monsanto
Company and Monsanto Technology LLC (collectively “Monsanto”) compensatory
damages in the amount of $226,214.00. Monsanto Co. v. David, 448 F. Supp. 2d
1088, 1094 (E.D. Mo. 2006). On July 25, 2006, the court awarded Monsanto
attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and costs, bringing the total damages
award to $786,989.43. Monsanto Co. v. David, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1102-03
(E.D. Mo. 2006).
David did buy RoundUp Ready soybeans in 2003. He claims he planted the perimeter of his
field with RUR seeds and the interior field with conventional seeds. As part of his defense, he also claims that
though the original seeds are patented and under contract that future
generations of seeds should not be. At
issue is whether a genetically engineered seed and resulting plant will
reproduce seeds identical in genetic makeup to the parent. Nevertheless, Monsanto wins another case and
must be paid for next generation seeds as if they were the original product.
2008. A landmark piece of legislation, AB 541 -
sponsored by a coalition of agriculture organizations and food businesses was
signed into law. AB541 indemnifies California farmers that were victims of
natural drift of GE pollen onto their land and subsequent contamination.
MONSANTO COMPANY V SCRUGGS. The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
Case.
2000 – 2006.
(“Scruggs et al”) appealed the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granting Monsanto Company’s
motions for summary judgment of patent invalidity and infringement, Monsanto
Co. v. Scruggs, 342 F. Supp. 2d 584 (N.D. Miss. 2004); antitrust violations
and patent misuse, Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs, 342 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D.
Miss. 2004) (“Summary Judgment II”); and common law counterclaims of, inter
alia, tortuous interference, unfair competition, and invasion of privacy, Monsanto
Co. v. Scruggs, 342 F. Supp. 2d 602 (N.D. Miss. 2004). Additionally,
Scruggs appeals the trial court’s order granting Monsanto a permanent
injunction.
Monsanto owns U.S. Patent No. 5,352,605 (“the 605
patent”), which is directed toward insertion of a synthetic gene consisting of
a 35S cauliflower mosaic virus (“CaMV”) promoter, a protein sequence of
interest, and a stop signal, into plant DNA to create herbicide resistance.
Monsanto also owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,164,316; 5,196,525; and 5,322,938
(collectively “the McPherson patents”) which are directed toward insect
resistant traits. The McPherson patents expand upon the ‘605 patent in several
ways, including disclosure of an enhanced CaMV 35S promoter.
Monsanto used the technology in the ‘605 patent to
develop glyphosate herbicide resistant soybeans and cotton, sold as Roundup
Ready (R) soybeans and cotton. Monsanto used the ’605 patent in combination
with the McPherson patents to develop stacked trait cotton (“Bollgard/Roundup
Ready (R) cotton”), which is resistant to glyphosate herbicide and certain
insects.
Guess who won the case.
2005. Roundup
Ready soybean was licensed to defendant
for a limited period. Monsanto alleged that defendant retained soybean seed and
planted it in a subsequent year and sold or planted seed in other farms without
their authorization. Monsanto claims it
will suffer irreparable injury if the discovery process is not expedited. They need to know who Dragan’s customers are
before more patent infringement and loss of profits occur.
13 Sep 2004.
Plaintiffs/Appellants brought this case as a putative class action under
sections four and fifteen of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 & 16 for treble the damages caused by an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy in violation of section one of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1. Appellants appeal from the district court's denial of their motion
to certify two classes – farmers and seed distributors.
While Monsanto enjoyed a lawful monopoly over its GM Seed
genes, by virtue of its patents, it was unable to commercialize the genes
itself. In 1992 and 1993, Monsanto granted broad licenses to Appellees Pioneer
and Syngenta, major seed producers and distributors, to develop commercial
seeds using these patented genes, thus surrendering its monopoly over the
genes. The licenses did not restrict in any material way Pioneer's or
Syngenta's development, marketing, or pricing of seeds containing the genes.
For the soybean licenses, Monsanto received full up-front payment from both
Pioneer and Syngenta. For the corn licenses, Monsanto received full up-front
payment from Pioneer. Syngenta's corn license required payment of royalties
which floated with whatever premium Syngenta might charge for its GM corn seed
sales as compared to its non-GMO corn seed sales.
Monsanto wished to extract the monopoly profits from
certain genes it had patented which
could be used to develop genetically modified corn and soybean seeds (GM
seeds). But Monsanto had surrendered its monopoly over the genes by giving
broad licenses to Pioneer and Syngenta. Monsanto therefore secured the
agreement of Pioneer and Syngenta to inflate the prices of their own GM corn
and soybean seeds to support Monsanto's technology fees rather than to undercut
the fees through normal price competition. Monsanto propped up its technology
fee also by securing the agreement of Appellee Aventis to limit its production
of LibertyLink soybean seeds, which competed with the GM soybean seed sold by
Monsanto, Pioneer, and Syngenta. The parties to the conspiracy performed their
obligations under their illegal agreement to an extent sufficient to injure all
members of the proposed classes.
Appellants moved for certification of two classes. The
first class consisted of farmers (other than as distributors) who, from 1996 to
present, purchased Roundup Ready soybean seeds or the right to grow the seeds
directly from one of the defendants. The second class consisted of farmers
(other than as distributors) who, from 1996 to present, purchased Yieldgard
corn seeds or the right to grow the seeds directly from one of the defendants.
Appellants sought certification of these classes under Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).
After much legal analysis, the court found in favor of
Monsanto. According to the court, no price fixing
conspiracy existed. This is what is referred to as a legal fiction.
[2004]
1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 Canadian
Supreme Court.
Schmeiser claimed that
the presence of RR crops occurred accidentally.
He claimed he had never used them and did not owe Monsanto damages since
he had not profited from the alleged “infringement”.
Through legal
maneuvering, the court concluded that Monsanto did have patent ownership of a
plant it genetically engineered in a lab.
So if a GMO
crop is found on agricultural land if it wasn’t purchased or even if it got
their by natural means such as wind or insect pollination, the farmer is liable
to Monsanto for “theft” of its property!
Legal intent doesn’t factor into the equation.
382 F.3d 1374:
Monsanto Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v ...Ralph
In 1998, Ralph purchased 264 fifty-pound bags of soybean
seed containing the patented Roundup Ready biotechnology. In 1999, he purchased
127 fifty-pound bags of cottonseed, containing both the Roundup Ready
biotechnology and the Bollgard
biotechnology (hereinafter, "stacked-trait" cottonseed). The
standard Monsanto contract was signed and so began the controversy.
7 Sep 2004 Kem L. Ralph appeals from two final judgments
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Monsanto Co. v. Ralph, No. 4:00CV135
RWS (E.D.Mo. July 12, 2002); and (2) a July 9, 2003, judgment entering a jury
award to Monsanto of nearly three million dollars in damages for patent
infringement, or, in the alternative, breach of contract, and granting
Monsanto's motion for permanent injunction, Monsanto Co. v. Ralph, No.
4:00CV135 RWS (E.D.Mo. July 9, 2003)
Ralph also appeals from the September 3, 2003. This court held that though the contract
based damages were excessive in light of the McFarling case, it was right to
uphold the sanction and denial of Ralph’s post-judgment motion.
302 F.3d 1291: United States Court of Appeals, Federal
Circuit. Decided: August 23, 2002
Rehearing En Banc Denied:
RE: Roundup Ready Soybeans. Monsanto filed suit in the Eastern District
of Missouri, charging patent infringement and breach of contract, and seeking a
preliminary injunction. Mr. McFarling challenged the Missouri court's
jurisdiction, and raised various counterclaims and defenses including charges
of antitrust violation, patent misuse, and violation of the Plant Variety
Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq. (PVPA). The district court
interpreted the argument concerning violation of the PVPA as a request for
declaration that the patents are invalid or unenforceable, granted McFarling's
motion to stay the proceeding pending review by the Supreme Court of this
court's ruling that plant seeds and seed-grown plants are within the subject
matter of § 101 of the Patent Act.
2001. Troy Roush, once big on biotech, was wrongly accused of
saving seed. The legal fight cost him $390,000 in lawyers' fees. Even if he
could find good conventional seed; once Monsanto's DNA is in your field it's
almost impossible to get it out. And with the corporate DNA police abroad in
the land, farmers can't afford to take a chance. So it looks as though there's
no turning back from a future in which Monsanto and a handful of other
companies own the genetic building blocks of the world's food supply. 'I'd put
the genie back in the bottle in a heartbeat,' says Roush”.
No comments:
Post a Comment