SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS

Organic Valley

Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps

Botani Organic

Aloha Bay

Eden Foods

Ode Magazine

Mountain
Rose Herbs

The Green Guide

Monsanto's Biotech Bullying
Continues

----------
From: "I-SIS" <press-release@i-sis.org>
To: "I-SIS Mailing List" <jules@i-sis.org>
Subject: GM & Corporate Serfdom Official
Date: Thu, Oct 4, 2001, 8:20 PM

ISIS Report, - 4 October 2001
GM & Corporate Serfdom Official
We are witnessing the most outrageous acts of corporate theft and domination
in history. At its heart is the manipulation of life-forms and the use of
this technology to gain control over the food chain. Nick Papadimitriou
<mailto:nickp@i-sis.org> charts the recent antics of Monsanto.

Giant agbiotech companies such as Monsanto are aggressively imposing a new
form of serfdom on North American farming practices. By patenting both
naturally occurring gene sequences and genetically modified forms of life,
Monsanto can use aggressive lawsuits to ward off any potential rival. At the
same time, insidious forms of surveillance and barely concealed threats are
whittling away any options farmers have for getting seeds from other
suppliers.

In April, Monsanto secured a "torpedo" patent designed to sink all rivals on
antibiotic resistant marker genes used in practically all GMO crops [1].
This immediately resulted in court battles and a requirement for everyone
who has made use of the technology to pay Monsanto royalty fees. Monsanto
has now launched another torpedo. A patent is pending on the complete genome
of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The bacterium is used in a vector system to
insert new genetic material into crop plants and is a staple of the
agricultural biotechnology sector. The patent has been pending for 18 years,
as challenges were made by rival companies claiming to have invented the
same. But the original technology was actually developed by non-industry
academics on government funds [2].

Monsanto stipulated in its "New Monsanto Pledge", announced last November,
that it was committed to sharing knowledge and technology in order to
benefit people and the environment [3]. Working with a research team from
the University of Richmond, the company purports to have placed the genome
of Agrobacterium tumerfaciens onto a public database. However a perusal of
the terms and conditions reveals that access is strictly limited to
non-profit groups willing to enter into a licensing contract with Monsanto.

A similar arrangement holds with the Monsanto genome database for rice. The
database registration agreement, available for download at Monsantos devoted
site, places severe restrictions on would-be researchers. Any patent
resulting from information in the database has to be filed with Monsanto,
and this applies anywhere in the world. Monsanto reserves the right to claim
royalties for such work. Even more disturbingly, information on the database
that is duplicated in any public source, and gained from that source, is
also subject to those conditions. Unrestricted publication of research
gained from using Monsantos database is limited to 250 kilobases [4].

That is only half the story so far. Monsanto has become renowned for
throwing its weight about in the farming community. Several hundred lawsuits
are pending following the successful prosecution of Canadian farmer Percy
Schmeiser for alleged illegal possession of Monsantos Round Up Ready canola.
Schmeiser has now launched an appeal citing seventeen instances of the judge
having erred or judged contrary to law. Amongst these are the determination
that a farmer who inadvertently grows Roundup Canola has no right to grow or
sell any such seeds or plants regardless of how they came to be there.
Another crucial ground for appeal is that Justice McKay placed the onus on
Schmeiser to prove how the seeds came to be in his field whether by
contamination or otherwise [5]. Monsanto subsequently set up a "snitch"
line, advertised on radio stations in western Canada, to encourage reports
on other alleged malpractices. Following protests, this has been dropped
[6].

Now Monsanto is suing another Saskatchewan farmer for allegedly growing
Round Up canola without a license. Kelly Ryczek is accused of obtaining
Round Up seeds from a source other than Monsanto. Ryczek allegedly planted
some of these seeds and sold others on. Monsanto is insisting Ryczek
surrenders the seeds, and is demanding a penalty for breach of their patent
rights [7].

The Schmeiser case, because it took place in Canada, has prompted concerns
that it will serve as a legal precedent in other commonwealth nations.
Professor Brad Sherman of the Centre for Intellectual Property in
Agriculture, Australia National University, has pointed out that Schmeiser
was prosecuted for infringement of exclusive rights awarded to Monsanto.
Monsanto won the case based solely on the fact its GM canola was found
growing on Schmeisers land, regardless of the fact Schmeiser was a victim of
contamination.

Sherman thinks farmers are being pressured into buying Monsanto seeds,
because, if not, they run the risk of being prosecuted like Schmeiser.
Sherman concludes that the patent holder "has no incentive to take
responsibility for controlling its technology". On the contrary the farmers
are being made responsible for controlling the patented genes [8].

It gets worse. The selling point behind Roundup Ready is that it is a
glyphosphate-resistant strain. Spray on the herbicide and youre left with
nothing but Monsanto crops. However, after two years application,
glyphosphate-resistant volunteer corn plants begin to flourish. This has led
to the most bizarre Monsanto patent yet awarded. US patent # 6,239,072
covers the practice of mixing glyphosphate with other herbicides, and any
premixture thereof. This patent has been awarded despite the fact that
mixing herbicides is what any sensible, thinking farmer would naturally do,
and has been doing, in the event of resistant plants emerging. The patent
also serves as a "de facto" admission of the GM "superweed" problem and that
Roundup technology lacks efficacy and predictability.

It doesnt end there. The scope of Monsantos invention extends to using the
mixtures on any straggler volunteer crops that may develop glyphosphate
resistance by accident or design, at any time in the future. Using such
broad patents, Monsanto assures that nothing escapes its clutches. By
forcing farmers to use faulty technology and then patenting further methods
to rectify those faults Monsanto is placing the farming community in a
quicksand of ongoing legal obligations [9].

Fortunately, Monsanto doesnt always get its way. Monsanto was subject to a
US department of Justice Antitrust Division enquiry back in 1998 regarding
their acquisition of DeKalb Genetics Corporation. Similarly, when Monsanto
attempted to acquire Delta & Pine Land Co in 1999 to gain control of that
companys terminator seed technology, the Antitrust Division indicated that
it was prepared to sue to prevent the transaction. In a recent speech made
before the Organization for Competitive Markets in Nashville, Douglas Ross,
Special Counsel for Agriculture at the Antitrust division outlined the basis
on which prosecution for antitrust regulations can be brought. Amongst
others, he cited conspiracies to deny market access or otherwise suppress
competition, the use of predatory and/or exclusionary conduct to hold on to
a monopoly in the market and mergers that are likely to lessen competition
in the market. Monsanto is guilty on all three counts [10].

1. "Monsantos "Submarine Patent" Torpedoes Ag Biotech", RAFI News Release,
April 26,2001 www.rafi.org <http://www.rafi.org/>
2. "Owning the future: The green-back revolution" by Seth Shulman,
Techreview.com, Sept 2001 http://techreview.com/magazine/sep01/shulman.asp
<http://techreview.com/magazine/sep01/shulman.asp>
3. "Monsanto makes empty promises to change their practice" by Charles
Abbott, Nov 27, 2001 www.purefood.org/monsanto/promises.cfm
<http://www.purefood.org/monsanto/promises.cfm>
4. Monsanto database registration agreement, Sept, 2001, rice research.org
5. "Common farmers forced to buy GM seeds?" Norfolk Genetic Information
Network, Aug 27,2001 www.ngin.org.uk <http://www.ngin.org.uk/>
6. ""Monsanto Representatives" Intimidate Farmers with the use of Private
Investigators", Monsanto vs Schmeiser website, Sept 15, 2001
7. "Monsanto ready to wage war: Schmeiser case opens door for Monsanto to
pursue other patent breaches" by Murray Lyons, The StarPheonix, Canada, July
19, 2001
8. As [5] above
9. "Monsanto sees opportunity in glyphosphate resistant volunteer weeds" by
David Dechant, Aug 3, 2001 www.cropchoice.com <http://www.cropchoice.com/>
10. Speech made by Douglas Ross, Department of Justice Antitrust Division,
July 20, 2001 www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/8681.html
<http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/8681.html>

This report can be found on the I-SIS website
http://www.i-sis.org/CorporateSerfdom.shtml
<http://www.i-sis.org/CorporateSerfdom.shtml>

The Institute of Science in Society
www.i-sis.org <http://www.i-sis.org>
PO Box 32097,
London NW1 OXR
Tel: 44 -020-7380 0908

This email may be reproduced in any unmodified form, on condition that it is
accredited accordingly and contains a link to the I-SIS website:
http://www.i-sis.org/

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as plain text please let us
know. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list - please reply to
press-release@i-sis.org <mailto:press-release@i-sis.org> with the word
unsubscribe in the subject field