"I am a seed developer from western Canada, where since 1947 my wife and I have been developing a strain of canola that is resistant to certain diseases that we have on the prairies. I am also a seed saver, like hundred of thousands of farmers around the world who save their seed from year to year, to plant and harvest.
I was also the mayor of my community for over twenty five years.
In 1998 without any prior knowledge, Monsanto laid a lawsuit against me alleging that I had infringed their patent by growing their genetically modified conola without a license. It was a real shock to me, as we had never had anything to do with Monsanto.
But the real issue that concerned us was the possibility that our pure seed, which we had developed after half a century of research would now be contaminated. We stood up to Monsanto, arguing that if any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were present in our pure seed, then Monsanto were liable for destroying the property of others.
It took two years for this case to go to trial at the Federal court of Canada, with one judge, but no jury, and I had no choice in the matter. In the two years of allegations Monsanto withdrew all allegations that I had obtained their seed illegally, but because they had found some GMO canola plants in the ditch along my field, I had infringed their patent. That is the basis on which the case went to the Federal Court of Canada.
This is what the judge ruled: it does not matter how Monsantos GMOs get into or onto any farmers field or into a seed supply (He went on to specify how this could happen: direct seed movement by birds, by wind, especially on the prairies, by floods, and through cross-pollination by bees). It doesnt actually matter how the genetically modified organisms get into an organic farmers field or into the fields of a conventional farmer like myself: once there, those seeds and plants become Monsantos property."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Theft-of-Life-A-story-of-by-Percy-Schmeiser-090303-93.html
"Bablok became part of the controversy because some of his bee colonies were collecting pollen from fields where the Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture was growing GM corn for research purposes. The bees carried the pollen back to their hives and Bablok, who knew that the GM cornfields were nearby, had samples tested to ensure that his honey was clean. But the laboratory found that up to 7 percent of the pollen was from GM plants. When the case became public, a district court in the Bavarian city of Augsburg ordered Bablok to stop selling, or even giving away, his honey. As a result, he became Germany's first beekeeper who delivered his honey to a waste incineration facility. Now Bablok is suing the Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture to recover his costs and his lost sales, which he says amount to about 10,000.
The suit is complicated and has already passed through two courts. A third court is due to hear it soon and both sides are seeking a judgment establishing a principle. The case is about more than just Bablok's costs and the purity of German honey. In fact, the future of green genetic engineering in Germany is at stake. A victory for Bablok would further discredit MON 810. In the public's perception, it would transform the plant into a hazard for human beings.
Bablok, sitting in his kitchen, is an easygoing man given to long pauses between sentences. File folders are arranged on the table in front of him containing motions filed by his attorneys from Berlin, people who are familiar with the material. A beekeepers' association is helping to pay their fees. The folders also contain the motions filed by the opposing parties' lawyers. They are being represented by the law firm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. With its 2,500 attorneys, the firm is about as global as Monsanto."
Bablok became part of the controversy because some of his bee colonies were collecting pollen from fields where the Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture was growing GM corn for research purposes. The bees carried the pollen back to their hives and Bablok, who knew that the GM cornfields were nearby, had samples tested to ensure that his honey was clean. But the laboratory found that up to 7 percent of the pollen was from GM plants. When the case became public, a district court in the Bavarian city of Augsburg ordered Bablok to stop selling, or even giving away, his honey. As a result, he became Germany's first beekeeper who delivered his honey to a waste incineration facility. Now Bablok is suing the Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture to recover his costs and his lost sales, which he says amount to about 10,000.
The suit is complicated and has already passed through two courts. A third court is due to hear it soon and both sides are seeking a judgment establishing a principle. The case is about more than just Bablok's costs and the purity of German honey. In fact, the future of green genetic engineering in Germany is at stake. A victory for Bablok would further discredit MON 810. In the public's perception, it would transform the plant into a hazard for human beings.
Bablok, sitting in his kitchen, is an easygoing man given to long pauses between sentences. File folders are arranged on the table in front of him containing motions filed by his attorneys from Berlin, people who are familiar with the material. A beekeepers' association is helping to pay their fees. The folders also contain the motions filed by the opposing parties' lawyers. They are being represented by the law firm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. With its 2,500 attorneys, the firm is about as global as Monsanto.
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/monsantos_uphill_battle_germany
"A group of food companies, mostly small co-ops, has pledged to avoid using sugar from genetically modified sugar beets.
Organizers of the registry insist that not enough is known about the long-term health and environmental effects of genetically modified beet sugar.
"We need to avoid the all-too-common situation of finding out a product is harmful after it has been approved and widely distributed," said Jeffrey Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, one of a dozen sponsors of the registry.
The Institute for Responsible Technology opposes all use of genetically modified organisms for food purposes.
Signers of the registry would prefer that genetically modified foods be labeled. But because that's not required in the United States, they created the registry.
The 70 companies that signed on pledged to "seek whenever possible to avoid using GM sugar in our products."
Signers include Organic Valley, Bozeman Community Food Co-op and Skagit Valley Food Co-op.
The group is opposed to Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology, which allows farmers to kill problem weeds with little or no harm to the crop as it grows.
Last year marked the first widely grown Roundup Ready sugar beet crop in the United States.
Tom Stearns, president of High Mowing Organic Seeds, said genetically modified sugar beets could cross-pollinate with related crops such as chard and table beets, potentially affecting their marketability.
"Overseas markets have already rejected other GM products, so the economic future of many of our nation's farmers is being needlessly risked," Stearns said.
High Mowing Seeds is a signer of the registry and a plaintiff in a lawsuit opposing the release of Roundup Ready sugar beets.
Companies on the registry said they don't support "the introduction of genetically modified sugar from GM sugar beets."
But growers of Roundup Ready sugar beets insist that there's no such thing as genetically modified sugar.
Sugar is sugar, regardless of how it's grown, according to the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.
Sugar is the same, whether it comes from sugar beets, sugar cane, or from crops grown using conventional, biotech or organic methods, council officials said."
http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=618&ArticleID=49114&TM=45064.89
