Organic Consumers Association

Anti-Trust Case Against Monsanto & Gene Giants Moves Forward

From Agribusiness Examiner #289 9/15/03
By Al Krebs <>


DAVID BARBOZA, NEW YORKTIMES: A federal judge on [September 19] let proceed an antitrust case that accused the Monsanto Company and other big agricultural seed giants of conspiring to control the world's market in genetically modified crops.

In a 13-page decision, Rodney W. Sippel, a federal district judge in St. Louis, dismissed part of a class-action lawsuit that was filed in 1999 by a group of farmers who said they had suffered huge losses because of global opposition to genetically modified crops.

But Judge Sippel allowed the antitrust portion of the case to proceed, possibly setting the stage for a court battle over whether the world's biggest producers of agricultural seeds got together in the late 1990's to fix prices and control the market for those valuable biotechnology seeds, which are now planted on more than 100 million acres worldwide.

Judge Sippel denied an effort by the big seed companies to dismiss the antitrust claims and end the possibility of a trial.

While the judge has not yet ruled on whether to give the case class-action status, his decision to allow the antitrust case to move forward means thousands of internal documents about how some of the world's biggest biotechnology companies set their prices could be presented in court.

Lawyers representing the farmers who filed the suit have said in court that some documents show that Monsanto and its competitors conspired to fix prices for years.

Monsanto and its co-defendants in the case, Bayer, Syngenta and Pioneer, the world's biggest seed company, have strongly denied any conspiracy took place.

Executives at Monsanto, which produces about 90% of the world's biotechnology traits, the genes that transform ordinary seeds into new types of crops, say the company legally patented and licensed its traits to other seed companies, including its three rivals and co-defendants.

Today, both sides in the case claimed some victory in the judge's decision.

Richard Lewis, a lawyer at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, which filed the class-action suit in 1999, said today, "The farmers are pleased that this challenge to the progress of the case has been defeated."

But executives at Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, said the judge's ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the case, and that if the judge denied the class-action status, the case would be even further diminished.

The 1999 lawsuit, which was filed by some of the nation's most prominent antitrust lawyers, originally argued that Monsanto, a pioneer in the development of biotechnology crops, was at the center of a global conspiracy to control the market for those crops.

The suit also accused Monsanto of rushing genetically modified crops to market without properly testing them and harming farmers who suffered crop losses when some export markets began to shun biotechnology crops.

Monsanto executives say most of the original claims --- including those that said even farmers who used conventional seeds were harmed by biotechnology crops --- have been dismissed.

"The broad claims have been so significantly narrowed, so it's clear that what they were charging about biotech is not true," a spokesman for Monsanto, Bryan Hurley, said. "This is absolutely an interim step and if it moves forward we believe it's a case without merit and we're confident the court will recognize that."

The other seed companies involved made similar statements.

"We don't think the case has any merit," said Doyle Karr, a spokesman at Pioneer Hi-Bred, a subsidiary of DuPont.

Bayer, which acquired Aventis CropScience in June 2002, also dismissed the price-fixing accusations.

"We don't believe the claim against Bayer is valid," said Mark Ryan, a Bayer spokesman. "We'll defend ourself vigorously in court against that claim."

But antitrust experts say a contentious antitrust court battle is brewing.

"The judge is saying this antitrust case can go forward," said Robert Mnookin, a professor at the Harvard Law School. "He's refusing to throw out the antitrust case because there's a material dispute of fact over whether Monsanto and these other companies conspired to fix prices."

EDITORS NOTE: The following statement is the response of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering and the National Family Farm Coalition to the recent decision by the District Court in the case of Sample vs. Monsanto.

We are pleased with the Court's decision to proceed to trial on the Plaintiff's claims alleging antitrust violations against the world's largest
biotechnology companies. It would be disastrous for our country and for
all of humanity if a handful of corporations were to control the world's seed supply, and the antitrust allegations address that problem.

However, we are disappointed with that portion of the decision that dismissed claims relating to the economic injury to farmers caused by
genetically engineered crops. Genetically engineered crops have resulted
in lower yields, higher costs of
production and loss of markets and farmers should receive compensation for the economic harm they have suffered as a result.

A decision on whether to appeal this issue will be made after the trial. Other legal remedies for compensating farmers for economic loss will also be explored.

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.