Perry Schmeiser vs
Monsanto
I’ve been farming
since 1947 when I took over from my father. My wife and I are known on the
Prairies as seed developers in canola and as seed savers. Hundreds of thousands
of farmers save their seed from year to year.
In August 1998 I
received a lawsuit document from Monsanto. Up to that time I never had anything
to do with Monsanto’s GM canola. I’d never bought their seed or gone to a
Monsanto meeting. I didn’t even know a Monsanto rep.
There were a number
of items in the lawsuit. First of all, they said I had somehow acquired
Monsanto’s GM canola seed without a licence, planted it, grew it and therefore
infringed on their patent. They went on to say that it was 80 or 90 percent
contamination that I had in a roadside ditch and so on.
When we were sued my
wife and I immediately realized that 50 years of research and development on our
pure canola seed that was suitable and adaptable to certain conditions on the
Prairies, climatic and soil conditions and especially diseases that we had in
canola, could now be contaminated. We said to Monsanto at the time, “Look, if
you have any of your GMOs in our pure canola seed you are liable for the
destruction of our property and our pure seed.” So, we stood up to them.
I think at that time
there were two main issues. We lost 50 years of research and development and we
felt that if farmers ever lose the right to use their own seed the future
development of new seeds and plants suitable to their local climatic and soil
conditions would be stopped. Those are the two main reasons we stood up to
Monsanto.
It took two years of
pre-trial and in those two years Monsanto withdrew all allegations that I had
ever obtained seed illegally. They even went so far as to admit the allegations
were false.
But, they still
found that the fact that they had found some of Monsanto’s GM canola plants in
the ditch along my field, not even in the field, meant I violated the patent.
So, it became a patent infringement case. I had no choice where it would be
heard. Patent laws are federal, so it was before the federal court of Canada
immediately, with one judge. It went to trial in June 2000 and lasted two and a
half weeks.
That ruling is what
brought my case to international attention. These are some of the main points:
1.
It does not matter how Monsanto’s GM canola or soybeans or any GM plant gets
into a farmer’s field. The judge went on to specify how this could happen:
cross-pollination and direct seed movement. Believe me that’s a primary cause -
wind, birds and bees, because we have a lot of wind on the prairies.
2.
The judge said it doesn’t matter how it gets into a farmer’s field, destroying
or contaminating your crop, it all becomes Monsanto’s property. You no longer
own your crop. That’s what startled people all over the world; how an organic or
conventional farmer can lose a crop and seeds or plants overnight. He also went
on to say that all the seeds and plants that my wife and I had developed over
half a century go to Monsanto.
3.
The other issue was that my entire crop from all our canola fields in 1998 goes
to Monsanto. He also ruled that I was not allowed to use my seeds or plants
again. So, all our research and development was gone and Monsanto got our crop
for nothing.
We went to the
federal Court of Appeal, which took over a year. Then I had three judges, but at
the appeal court they only address the issues of facts of law, points of law or
where the first judge erred in law. The viability issue and the property rights
issue were never addressed.
After so many days
of trial the federal Court of Appeal stated that although the judges did not
agree with all of the first judge’s decisions they upheld his ruling. All three
judges ruled against me.
Next was the Supreme
Court of Canada. Now it was a pretty depressing time because we didn’t know what
our chances would be that the Supreme Court would hear it. We applied in
November 2002 and in May 2003 we received the best news in five years of legal
battle when the Supreme Court ruled that it would indeed hear the case. That was
a tremendous victory for us.
I’d like to explain
the main issues of what the Supreme Court will be addressing. I will concentrate
on four or five facts out of many.
1.
Can living organisms, seeds, plants, genes and human organs, be owned and
protected by corporate patents on intellectual property?
2.
Who is responsible for the genetically modified traits of noxious weeds that
then become resistant to weed killers? We now have these super weeds.
3.
Can farmers’ rights to grow conventional or organic crops be protected?
4.
Can farmers keep the ancient right to save their own seed?
5.
Who owns life?
The first trial
judge said it doesn’t matter how it gets there, even when he specified how this
could happen. I think that’s what really alarmed farmers and property owners in
Another issue that
you never hear about in GMOs is the issue of corporate control of contracts that
exist on the Prairies of North America. You would say to yourself that this
can’t happen in a free country like
Besides the
environmental, food, health and contamination issues, there is the issue of
contracts. To me this is one of the most vicious contracts on the face of the
Earth, taking farmers’ rights away.
These are some of
the main points in a contract with Monsanto:
·
A farmer can never use his own seeds.
·
You must always buy seeds from Monsanto.
·
You must only buy your chemicals from Monsanto.
·
If you commit some violation of this contract, and they fine you, you must sign
a non-disclosure statement that you cannot talk to the media or to your
neighbours about what Monsanto has done to you. Monsanto often says there have
only been a few cases, but we don’t really know because farmers have to sign
this non-disclosure statement.
Another point. You
must pay Monsanto $15/acre per year licence fee for the privilege of growing
GMOs and in the 2003 contract they’ve added another clause - you can no longer
sue Monsanto for whatever reason. You can never take Monsanto to court. That is
their contract.
Another important
issue, you must permit Monsanto’s detectives to come onto your land or look in
your granaries for three years after you sign this contract, even though you may
only grow it one year. And who is Monsanto’s police force? They’re former RCMP
officers. They go under the name of Robinson Investigation Services of Saskatoon
and they cover all of
In Monsanto’s
advertisements they say that if you think your neighbour is growing GM canola or
soybeans without license you should inform on them. If you do this you get a
free leather jacket from Monsanto. Believe me, there aren’t many people on the
prairies now wearing a new Monsanto jacket.
What happens when
Monsanto gets this tip or rumour? They immediately send out two of their
detectives. We call them gene police on the Prairies. They’ll go to the farmer’s
home or farmyard and say to him or his wife that they have this tip. But, first
of all, they’ll always say they are ex-RCMP and a lot of times the farmers don’t
hear the “ex.” They only hear police. It’s a form of intimidation.
They’ll say they
have a tip or a rumour that you’re growing GM canola without a licence and the
farmer will say No, that he or she has never had anything to do with it and
doesn’t want to grow it. The farmer is often told that he is lying and if he
doesn’t confess Monsanto will drag him through the courts and the farmer won’t
have a farm left. So, it’s real harassment and intimidation of farmers by these
gene police.
Now what do you
think happens when these detectives leave the farmer’s home? The farmer will
wonder which neighbour caused him the trouble. So, now we have the breakdown of
farmers not trusting one another and afraid to talk to one another. We have the
breakdown of our rural farm culture and society where farmers are not working
together or trusting one another.
My grandparents came
from
Now, Monsanto
doesn’t even stop there. Believe me, on this issue I’ve had I don’t know how
many farm wives crying on the phone after Monsanto’ police have been there
saying, “What can we do? They’ve threatened us.” And I’ll try to get them proper
legal advice. That’s the whole fear culture where farmers are even scared to
talk to one another.
The other means of
control is what can be considered extortion letters.
This has been done
all across
Can you imagine the
fear in a farm family when they get a letter from a multibillion dollar
corporation asking for many thousands of dollars so the company might not take
them to court?!
Another clause:
You’re not allowed to show this letter to anyone and you’re not allowed to tell
anyone that you’ve received this letter from Monsanto or what Monsanto has done
to you. So, a total suppression of farmers rights, freedom of speech and
expression.
If they can’t find a
farmer at home and they don’t know his mailing address, they can go to the local
municipality and get the location of his land. They will then use a small
airplane or helicopter and drop a Monsanto Roundup herbicide spray bomb on the
field. It covers about 30 feet in diameter, in the centre of a canola or soybean
field.
About 12 days after
Roundup has time to activate, they’ll fly back. If the crop, which was hit by
the spray, has died they’ll know the farmer has not been using Monsanto’s
Roundup, but if it hasn’t died, God help the farmer.
These are the
tactics. I’m talking about
I’ve talked about
our rural social fabric being broken down and how our freedom is threatened as
farmers. Two other very important issues come out of this.
First, with the
introduction of GMOs always remember there is no such thing as containment. Once
you introduce a life form, a life-giving form, into the environment there is no
calling back. You cannot contain the wind. You cannot contain the seed movement
through cross-pollination - birds, bees, and other animals. You cannot contain
it and it will spread as it has on the Prairies.
The other important
issue is there is no such thing as co-existence.
Believe me, as a
farmer for half a century, I know that once you introduce a GMO gene into the
environment, into any seed or plant, it’s a dominant gene. It will eventually
take over whatever species of plants it gets into. You can’t have GMOs in the
country and have organic or conventional farmers.
It will all
eventually become GMOs. That is the danger. There is no more choice left.
Believe me, organic farmers on the Prairies no longer can grow soybeans or
canola. All our seed supply is now contaminated with GMOs. Those choices have
been taken away for both conventional and organic farmers.
The other issue to
remember is canola comes from the brassica family, which includes close cousins
such as radishes, turnips and cauliflower. It is now cross-pollinating into the
close cousins.
Therefore, we’re
again destroying many crops that organic farmers no longer can raise.
The other issue is
wheat. If GM wheat is ever given regulatory approval, which is before the
federal government right now, it will totally destroy the organic farmers
because wheat comes from the grass family and again will cross-pollinate into
both the close and even the distant cousins in canola and wild mustard. So,
remember there’s no such thing as containment or co-existence.
When Monsanto or the
other corporations that promote GMO say they’ll make buffer strips of so many
feet, half a mile or a kilometre or so - there’s no such thing as a safe
distance. A whirlwind or especially all the geese and ducks we have on the
prairies. It passes through these birds after they eat it and they may fly 50 or
100 miles.
I get asked a lot
why farmers ever started to grow GMOs when they were introduced in 1996. At that
time Monsanto told farmers, among other things, that it would be a bigger yield,
that it was more nutritious and used less chemicals. I think the third point is
really what caught the farmers’ ears because on the prairies since 1946-47,
after the Second World War, farmers started using chemicals by the hundreds of
tons each year. A lot were highly potent and farmers realized the damage being
done to the environment, human health and animals.
There were other
things Monsanto said and you’ll hear the same thing today: We’ll now be able to
feed a hungry world. We’ll always have sustainable agriculture. Well, believe
me, to feed a hungry world doesn’t take the Monsantos of this world. What it
takes to feed a hungry world is politics, transportation and economics.
When I speak to
farmers in
They were developed
in government agricultural research stations across the Prairies, so
We’re saying that if
the government is going to receive royalties from Monsanto on GM wheat how much
has it already received on sales of GM canola all these years? So it’s coming
out that the government has been in bed with Monsanto giving them regulatory
approval and worked for them to develop the GMOs.
In a statement to
the media Chris Jordan, Monsanto’s communications manager for
Within two to three
years after the introduction of GM canola on the Prairies, through
cross-pollination, our regular plants became a super weed.
Monsanto wasn’t the
only company at that time selling GMOs, so, there were now the GMOs from three
companies combined in one canola plant which now took at least three chemicals
to control and kill. All Monsanto said was, “No problem. We’ve now come up with
a new, more super-toxic chemical to kill the new super weed.” So everything they
said about less chemicals turned out to be false. Now their yield is down about
6.4 percent on canola. The US Department of Agriculture has admitted that
soybeans yield is down at least 15 percent. So now we have less yield.
The third issue of
nutrition is that what they’re not saying is the quality is way poorer, maybe
half, of conventional canola. I won’t go into why that is, but it’s primarily
with the erucic acid content, the greens in canola, which makes it more bitter
for cooking.
So, now we have less
yield, more chemical use, a new super weed and the quality is much poorer.
I’ll say that if
anything is going to lead to starvation or hunger it’s the introduction of GMOs
around the world.
I haven’t touched on
the economic issue. We as Canadians cannot sell one bushel of canola to the EU,
so one-third of our markets have gone and our prices have dropped. Now they want
to introduce GM wheat where even the Canadian Wheat Board said we would lose
over 80 percent of our market.
I was in Japan a
couple of months ago and I have a statement by the millers, the processors and
the consumers of Japan and South Korea which says what contracts will be
canceled if we introduce GM wheat. That’s how serious it is.
I mentioned a bit
about pharmaceutical plants. That is the worst curse that has come in with the
introduction of GMOs. I went through the whole 50 years of the development of
chemicals after WWII and then GMOs since the ’80s. Now the introduction of
prescription drugs from GM plants - there were about 300 test plots in
In the
I can’t believe that
our governments are permitting prescription drugs to be produced in the open.
Plants are a cheap way of producing drugs compared to laboratories.
What if someone has
major surgery and then eats a food laced with a blood thinner, or if a pregnant
woman eats a food laced with a contraceptive? The introduction of what they call
pharma-plants, or prescription drug plants, is the worst curse that is coming.
Whether it’s GM wheat or soybeans these prescription drugs are something we
should all be concerned about.
What can we do? I
think all of us must contact our MPs and members of the cabinet as they have
done in
I haven’t spoken on
the environmental issues or the issue of the safety of food, but in
The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency did not do one bit of testing. They only used the data
supplied to them by Monsanto. Japanese and Netherland governments are now saying
that the CFIA reached a fraudulent conclusion.
I forwarded these
documents to the CFIA two weeks ago. I haven’t had a reply. I also discussed it
with them on the phone. What results we’ll get I don’t know.
To give you another
example, before I came here to
He said the reason
it’s just coming out now is because he didn’t say anything to the authorities.
He’d been growing it illegally. One of the GMO companies had gotten him to do
it. When his neighbours heard that his cattle had died there was an inquiry and
he finally admitted he had grown GMOs. That is just one example.
I can give you all
kinds of examples from the
However, my emphasis
is really on farmers’ rights, the rights to use one’s own seed from year to
year. The judge in my first case ruled that although farmers in
Another issue is
that I never used Monsanto’s patent and in
At that time I had
two scientists pull samples from all my fields. I had eight fields of canola in
1998. These were sent to the
The judge said it
didn’t matter. Even with the fields that had no contamination he said because I
was a seed saver and was using my seed from year to year there was a probability
there could be some of Monsanto’s GMOs in those fields also, so the crop all
goes to Monsanto.
So, even on a
probability you can lose your rights overnight. That’s why my case became so
well known worldwide. Remember, it’s a total control of the world’s seed supply
they’re after and whoever controls that will control the food supply. In many
I have a lot of
confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada and I’m sure they’ll rule in favour of
the rights of people to use their own seed from year to year.
I have photos to
show you how fields have been contaminated and of Monsanto’s gene police in
farmer’s fields. These detectives go into any fields they choose to without
permission and steal seeds or plants to check on them. If a farmer catches them
trespassing they will laugh at the farmer and make threats.
When farmers hear
what my wife and I have gone through with five years of legal battles and about
$300,000 in court costs and legal fees how can any farmer stand up to them?
There is no justice
for an average person. You cannot stand up to a multibillion-dollar corporation
in court. I would not have been able to do it without people from all over the
world, organizations and foundations. To give you an extent of the ruthlessness
of Monsanto, about a year ago they took me back to court on the issue of their
costs.
They sued me for $1
million this time because they said I was arrogant, stubborn and didn’t do what
they wanted.
So, what did the
judge rule on that case? He ruled that I have to pay Monsanto $153,000 for their
court costs.
I think there was
some humour in this because they had to itemize what some of that million
dollars was comprised of. There was $1,100 for a digital camera they said they
used in court - well, you know, you can’t use a camera in court in
After the judge
awarded them the $153,000 what did they do? They then put a lien on all our land
and even our house so I could no longer borrow any more money to fight them.
They tried to stop me financially. They tried to break us down mentally. They
would come into our driveway and sometimes park all day. When my wife came out
of the house they would take off. They watched us day after day when we worked
in our fields.
They try to
intimidate us. A farmer in
In conclusion, why
did we stand up to Monsanto? My wife and I are 72 and 73. We don’t know how many
good years we have left and we look at it this way: as a grandfather I ask what
kind of legacy I want to leave to my grandchildren. My grandparents and parents
left a legacy of land. I don’t want to leave a legacy to my children of land,
air and water full of poisons. I’m sure all of you tonight feel the same way.
So, we will go on
fighting for the rights of farmers all over the world to be able to use their
own seed.
From a speech by
Percy Schmeiser
If you can assist
financially with the legal challenge facing Percy please go to
www.percyschmeiser.com or send your contribution to Fight Genetically Altered
Food Fund Inc.,
(We may
not agree that Canola is food, but we certainly do agree that farmer’s
should have the freedom to grow their own seed without risking infection from GM
crops. Certainly, virulent non-food Canola weeds taking over the prairies of
For more on the GMO
controversy follow these links.
www.ocia.org
www.cog.ca
www.cropchoice.com
www.soilassociation.org
www.gks.com
www.foodnews.org
www.panna.org
www.econet.sk.ca
www.ramshorn.bc.ca
www.organicagcentre.ca
www.nfu.ca
www.oxfam.org
www.makingthelinksradio.ca
www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/gm/depth/wheat/index.php
www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/gm/depth/ pollution/cec_exec_summary.php
www.canadians-toronto.org/campaigns.htmx?op=showit&cid=11implants.clic.net/tony/Wahl/01.htm
www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=1208
www.saskorganic.com/oapf/links.html
www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=971
www.scholarly societies.org/soilsci _soc.html
For Australians..
Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) today invited individuals and organisations with
an interest in the regulation of food to provide information and comment on a
number of applications to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
Submissions should
be in FSANZ’s hands by
Here’s a quick look
at the enemy:
Food derived from
glyphosate-tolerant cotton variety GHB614 (Application A614 -Initial Assessment)
Bayer CropScience is seeking approval for food derived from glyphosate-tolerant
cotton, line GHB614 - a cotton variety that has been genetically modified (GM)
to be resistant to glyphosate herbicide. FSANZ must undertake a pre-market
safety assessment of GM crops before approving their use for human consumption.
The oil and linters of this cotton variety are intended for use in food. We
invite the views of interested parties.
Food derived from
insect-protected cotton line COT67B (Application A615 - Initial Assessment)
Syngenta Seeds Pty Ltd has applied to FSANZ to approve food derived from cotton
genetically modified to provide resistance to Lepidopteran species. Oil and
linters are the only food products derived from cotton. We will only approve the
application if we are satisfied that the GM food is as safe as its non-GM
counterpart. We are seeking the views of interested parties.
Food derived from
insect-protected corn MON 89034 (Application A595 - Draft Assessment)
Monsanto Australia Ltd wants FSANZ to amend the Code to approve food derived
from a GM corn, MON 89034, that has been modified to provide protection against
major insect pests. All GM foods must undergo a pre-market safety assessment
before they can be sold in
Submissions: FSANZ
welcomes public comment from industry, public health professionals, government
agencies and consumers. Details of all the assessments above can be found on
www.foodstandards.gov.au.
Get Up
If you are a member
of the Getup organisation, this is a great time to bring the GM issue to the
notice of the new Federal government. It appears to be far more likely than the
previous government to recognise the potential hazards.
Let’s make a GE Free
Australia one of our priorities for the new Federal government. They should have
at least some influence over the state governments.
To quickly, easily
and effectively have your say, before it’s too late, visit any or all of the
following web pages by clicking the links.
Mothers Against Genetic
Engineering
About the Author...
Percy Schmeiser (born