On September 16, 2011, OSGATA along with 138 agricultural organizations sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack. Drafted by the National Organic Coalition, it calls for increased protection from transgenics/GMOs under the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Read the letter here.
Farmers and Seed Distributors Defend Right to Protect Themselves From Monsanto Patents
____________________________________________________________
Organizations File Amici to Defend Plaintiffs’ Right to Trial and Respond to Monsanto’s Attempt to Dismiss Case
New York – August 11, 2011 – The 83 family farmers, small and family owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed filed papers in federal court today defending their right to seek legal protection from the threat of being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) represents the plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto and pending in the Southern District of New York. Today’s filings respond to a motion filed by Monsanto in mid-July to have the case dismissed. In support of the plantiffs’ right to bring the case, 12 agricultural organizations also filed a friend-of-the-court Amici Brief.
“Rather than give a straight forward answer on whether they would sue our clients for patent infringement if they are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, Monsanto has instead chosen to try to deny our clients the right to receive legal protection from the courts,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Today’s filings include sworn statements by several of the plaintiffs themselves explaining to the court how the risk of contamination by transgenic seed is real and why they cannot trust Monsanto to not use an occurrence of contamination as a basis to accuse them of patent infringement.”
It is now virtually impossible for a U.S. farmer to grow crops of their choosing (corn, soybeans, canola, etc.) and remain GMO-free because of the numerous biological and human means by which seeds can spread. “Given the difficulties in minimizing GM contamination farmers must make numerous decisions about which steps are worthwhile for them and which steps are not. They are not able to make these decisions based on their own and their customers‘ interests, but must instead make these decisions with the threat of litigation from a giant corporation looming over their head,” Spiegel writes in the amici brief. “The constant threat of a patent infringement suit by Monsanto creates significant, unquantifiable costs for Plaintiff farmers and similarly situated farmers.” The plaintiffs can do everything possible to maintain non-contaminated seeds, and will very likely still become contaminated, and be placed under the threat of a lawsuit. As Monsanto’s domination of the seed industry grows, and the winds continue to disperse pollen from their GMO laced crops, the likelihood of contamination and lawsuits only increases.
Monsanto has stated that they would not sue farmers who were “inadvertently” contaminated or farmers whose crops contain “trace amounts” of GMO, however they have refused to sign a simple covenant not to sue, that would bring an effective end to the lawsuit.
Monsanto’s track record makes it clear that Monsanto intends to continue threatening and harassing farmers. “Monsanto has undertaken one of the most aggressive patent assertion campaigns in history,” wrote Ravicher. Monsanto admits to filing 128 lawsuits against farmers from 1997-2010, settling out of court with 700 others for an undisclosed amount. As Spiegel writes, “The passage of time and natural biological processes will inevitably lead to higher contamination levels, at which point Monsanto will have created a target-rich environment for its patent enforcement activities.”
Plaintiffs Bryce Stephens, who farms in Kansas and serves as vice president of OSGATA, Frederick Kirschenmann, who farms in North Dakota, C.R. Lawn, who is founder and co-owner of Fedco Seeds in Maine, Don Patterson of Virginia and Chuck Noble, who farms in South Dakota, each submitted declarations to the court describing their personal experiences with the risk of contamination by genetically modified seed and why those experiences have forced them to bring the current suit. As summarized by the accompanying brief filed by PUBPAT on the plaintiffs’ behalf, “Monsanto’s acts of widespread patent assertion and the plaintiffs’ ever growing risk of contamination create a real, immediate and substantial dispute between them.”
In their brief, the amici describe some of the harmful effects of genetically modified seed and how easily GMOs can contaminate an organic or conventional farmer’s land. The organizations filing the amici brief were Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Ecological Farmers of Ontario, Fair Food Matters, International Organic Inspectors Association, Michigan Land Trustees, Natural Environment Ecological Management, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Association, Organic Council of Ontario, Slow Food USA, and Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.
Corn from Wood Prairie Farm
To whom it may concern:
Founded in January of 2008, OSGATA develops, protects, and promotes the organic seed trade and its growers. Our goal is to assure that the organic community has access to excellent quality organic seed, free of contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture. The membership is comprised of organic farmers who produce seed crops, organic seed companies, and affiliate organizations that support organic farmers and organic food systems.
We are strongly opposed to the deregulation of MON 87460, because the corn pollen is known to be highly mobile and we have concerns that organic corn and seed crops will be contaminated. This contamination will result in market rejection of organic crops because organic consumers have clearly indicated that they expect organic crops to be free of GMO content. GMO contamination of organic seed constitutes irreparable harm to the organic seed industry and undermines the integrity of organic seed. Any detectable level is unacceptable, it damages the livelihoods of organic producers and eliminates consumer choice.
Unless and until the petitioner can demonstrate the ability to contain their GMO genetic pollution on the licensee’s side of the fence, their petition should not be approved.
Jim Gerritsen – President
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
Source: National Geographic
WASHINGTON – July 21 – In an effort to boost exports, the Obama White House has entered into a joint venture with the agricultural biotechnology industry to remove barriers to the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, even on national wildlife refuges, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Today, PEER sued the White House Trade Representative, Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and the State Department to force release of documents detailing their partnership with industry.
Recent successful lawsuits brought by PEER with the Center for Food Safety have underlined the incompatibility of GE crops with refuge habitats, which has strengthened objections from GE-averse nations. The Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), whose most prominent member is Monsanto, the world’s biggest source of GE crops, approached the Obama White House for assistance. In late 2010, the White House formed an interagency “Agriculture Biotech Working Group” consisting of more than 35 officials from ten agencies to promote GE agriculture. This Working Group includes officials from the White House and its OMB, Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Trade Rep. It also has officials from State, Justice, Agriculture, EPA and FDA.
A central task of this Working Group is to legally insulate GE crops on refuges from further litigation. Initially, it tried to pressure the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which operates the National Wildlife Refuge System, to rescind its Ecological Integrity Policy, which forbids GE planting unless found to be essential to accomplishing a refuge purpose. Working with BIO, these officials then helped prepare environmental assessments to start paving a legal path for GE plantings on 75 refuges in 30 states.
“With all the environmental challenges facing this country, why is the White House priority putting wildlife refuges under the thumb of Monsanto?” asked PEER Staff Counsel Kathryn Douglass, who filed today’s Freedom of Information Act suits. “It is frankly depressing that the top White House official for ecosystem recovery is hustling genetically altered soybeans on slivers of land set aside for wildlife.”
PEER has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to most of the agencies in the Working Group. Today’s suits target three key agencies which have not turned over any documents. PEER has obtained fragmentary documents including a January 14, 2011 email from Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes relaying pressure from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that refuges were “not being consistent in supporting genetically modified crops.” Perhaps more telling are decisions to withhold records showing –
“We are on the ground floor of our climb to reach answers to these questions,” added Douglass, who is pursuing further record releases from the other agencies involved. “One thing we do know is this Biotech Working Group exhibits the opposite of the transparent, science-based decision-making we were promised from this administration.”
It’s a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that’s precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.
In an innocuous-sounding press release titled “USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass,” agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a “Roundup Ready” strain of Kentucky bluegrass—that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto’s widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you’ll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you—and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.
Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.
Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would “drastically weaken USDA’s regulation,” Gurian-Sherman told me. “This is perhaps the most serious change in US regs for [genetically modified] crops for many years.”
…………………………………………………………………………………….Click here for full article
An ambitious lawsuit against the agricultural firm Monsanto got a little bigger this week, and a lawyer for the plaintiffs hopes that this is only the beginning.
The case was initially filed in March by the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat), a non-profit legal services organization based at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, on behalf of 60 organic farmers and associated organizations. The farmers want assurance from Monsanto that they will not be sued for patent infringement if their farms become contaminated with the company’s genetically modified crops.
On 1 June, PubPat announced that the list of plaintiffs had grown to 83, and that the original complaint had been amended to include a recent exchange with Monsanto’s lawyers. In a letter written on behalf of Monsanto, Seth Waxman, former solicitor general under Bill Clinton and a partner at the law firm WilmerHale in Washington, DC, said Monsanto has no intention of suing the farmers for patent infringement. “Monsanto policy never has been, nor will be, to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of its patented seed or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means,” he wrote, echoing a statement Monsanto has also made on its website.
But rather than placating PubPat, executive director Daniel Ravicher says he saw a veiled threat in the statement’s ambiguity. Farmers whose crops contain more than a “trace” — whatever that means — of contamination are still vulnerable to action by Monsanto, he argues. Instead, Ravicher wants a legally binding declaration that Monsanto will not sue his clients for patent infringement.
Monsanto’s Failure to Provide Binding Legal Covenant To Protect Family Farmers Threatened by GMO Contamination Necessitates Amended Complaint
NEW YORK – June 1, 2011 – New threats by Monsanto have led to the filing of an amended complaint by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) in its suit on behalf of family farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed. Twenty-three new plaintiffs have joined with the original 60 in the amended complaint, bringing the total number represented in the case to 83. The plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto and pending in the Southern District of New York, now include 36 family farmer, food, agricultural research, food safety, and environmental organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members including several thousand certified organic, biodynamic, or otherwise non-transgenic family farmers.
“Our clients don’t want a fight with Monsanto, they just want to be protected from the threat they will be contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed and then be accused of patent infringement,” said PUBPAT Executive Director Daniel B. Ravicher. “We asked Monsanto to give our clients reassurance they wouldn’t do such a thing, and in response they chose instead to reiterate the same implicit threat to organic agriculture made in the past.”
Soon after the March filing of the lawsuit, Monsanto issued a statement saying they would not assert their patents against farmers who suffer “trace” amounts of transgenic contamination. In response, and in the hope the matter could be resolved out of court, PUBPAT attorneys wrote Monsanto’s attorneys asking the company to make its promise legally binding. Monsanto responded to PUBPAT’s request by hiring former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of WilmerHale, who rejected PUBPAT’s request and instead confirmed Monsanto may indeed make claims of patent infringement against organic farmers who become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. Copies of both letters are available as exhibits at the end of the amended complaint.
“Monsanto’s letter was an empty, indefensible, and self-evident evasion showing they are only interested in spinning propaganda without taking serious steps to resolve the problem created for organic and non-transgenic agriculture,” said one of the co-plaintiffs in the suit, Don Patterson of Virginia. “With the Monsanto letter signed by Waxman, the company rolled out their biggest legal cannon, but they fired off only fluffy wadding and smoke,” as he views it. “The letter shows Monsanto wanting to protect their freedom to threaten farmers with patent infringement suits,” he states; “Both the threats and the lawsuits are clearly important to their marketing strategy and business model.”
“Despite their empty propaganda to the contrary, they plainly do not want to give up these tactics,” Patterson asserts. “Monsanto has collected multiple millions of dollars in settlements often from family farmers without the resources to defend themselves,” he reports; “Too many have had to settle because they could not afford to fight.”
“The serious issues being engaged in this case require a constructive and socially-acceptable response from the defendant in the public interest,” adds Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of OSGATA, the lead plaintiff in the suit. “In the absence of that, we reassert the essential importance of the arguments stated in March and reinforced now by the additional evidence of the Monsanto intransigence. Monsanto’s utter failure to act reasonably to address our concerns has only reaffirmed the need for our lawsuit.”
“We don’t think we are asking too much to want assurance that if Monsanto’s transgenic genes contaminate our crops we will not be sued by Monsanto,” adds Iowa organic dairy farmer Francis Thicke, owner of plaintiff Radiance Dairy; “It is bad enough that we face the threat of contamination of our organic and non-transgenic crops. The least Monsanto can do is give us assurance that they won’t sue us for their own genetic trespass.”
The amended Complaint elaborates a fear tangibly vexing many family farmers: “Monsanto continued in the statement to perversely characterize this suit as an ‘attack,’ when Plaintiffs seek no money from and no injunction against them. All Plaintiffs seek is peace of mind if they are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, the company could never sue them for patent infringement. This is not an attack by the Plaintiffs and to characterize it that way only further evidences Monsanto’s aggressive and threatening attitude with respect to its patents. Thus, the statement made by Monsanto in response to this suit has only served to heighten Plaintiff’s fear that Monsanto will seek to enforce its patents against them should they ever be contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed.”
“It is outrageous that our entire farm, family business, and livelihood could be at risk because of Monsanto’s backward and oppressive response and enforcement towards farmers in regards to transgenic pollen drift, unasked for and unwanted—and the subsequent results in fields and farms,” says Ruth Chantry of Common Good Farm in Nebraska; “Any transgenic pollen drift that would ever come onto our farm is of great detriment to us, and as such, it is an invasion upon and a contamination of our crops, the multi-species habitat we are assisting and creating here—and to the integrity of how we are farming organically and Biodynamically.”
The request for court protection through a declaratory judgment is a primary objective of the case. The suit also argues the invalidity of Monsanto’s transgenic Roundup Ready patents under both statute and case law precedent requiring patented products to demonstrate clear social utility and not be dangerous to health. Four basic contentions, ranging from the patent invalidity, through the establishment of proper requirements for a finding of patent infringement to patent unenforceability and Monsanto’s lack of entitlement to collect damages were asserted in the original complaint filed March 29, 2011.
Court relief is being sought to protect organic farmers and other growers of non-transgenic crops from liability should unwanted transgenic contamination occur in their fields. The response to the PubPat letter of April 18 was received on April 28 from the Monsanto attorneys. When no binding legal covenant was provided, Ravicher states, the filing of the amended complaint was required to make the defendant’s position fully clear. “The reply from Monsanto is insufficient and unsatisfactory to protect the interests of my clients,” said Ravicher.
The biotech impact on the quality, safety, and nutritional integrity of food will be brought up for public and courtroom scrutiny, so that the truth can be determined between their arguments and ours, states Ravicher; “If Monsanto is proud of what they do, they should be happy for the opportunity to present the evidence in support of their ideal.” To help stimulate and promote objective debate between the differing agricultural philosophies, the new group of plaintiffs has joined the case as part of today’s filing. Included among these are groups long committed to food safety and environmental responsibility in the public interest. Some of the new plaintiffs have been prominent in other legal actions and advocacy against Monsanto’s efforts to aggressively and monopolistically assert its chemically and transgenically-dependent agricultural system.
Marty Mesh, Executive Director of Florida Organic Growers, states, “We join this suit with sadness but feel compelled to seek justice. If Organic farmers, seed growers, and companies have no assurance that technology they have never asked for, never signed a licensing agreement to use, have no desire to be a part of, and in fact, go to great lengths to avoid, can still trespass on their farms and subject them to a lawsuit by the patent holder who seemingly escapes all liability for that trespass, then it is not only morally wrong, ethically unjust, but also legally perverse.”
In addition to supplementing the complaint with Monsanto’s most recent clarifying statement confirming its threat to the plaintiffs and GMO-free agriculture, the new group of 23 organizations, seed companies, farms and individual farmers includes fourteen organizations: Weston A. Price Foundation, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Rhode Island, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Manitoba Organic Alliance, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (Wisconsin), Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Florida Organic Growers, Peace River Organic Producers Association (Alberta and British Columbia) and Union Paysanne (Quebec); two seed companies: Seed We Need (Montana), Wild Garden Seed (Oregon); and seven farms or individual farmers: Common Good Farm, LLC (Nebraska), American Buffalo Company (Nebraska), Full Moon Farm, Inc. (Vermont), Radiance Dairy (Iowa), Brian L. Wickert (Wisconsin), Bruce Drinkman (Wisconsin), and Murray Bast (Ontario).
These plaintiffs join the 60 plaintiffs from the original filing of the lawsuit in March including twenty-two organizations: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. (OCIA); OCIA Research and Education, Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network (California); Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems (Montana); Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders, Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; twelve seed companies: FEDCO Seeds, Inc. (Maine); Adaptive Seeds, LLC (Oregon); Sow True Seed (North Carolina); Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (Virginia); Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds (Saskatchewan); Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC (Missouri); Comstock, Ferre & Co. LLC (Connecticut); Seedkeepers, LLC (California); Siskiyou Seeds (Oregon); Countryside Organics (Virginia); Cuatro Puertas (New Mexico); Interlake Forage Seeds, Ltd. (Manitoba); and, twenty-six farms and farmers: Alba Ranch (Kansas); Wild Plum Farm (Montana); Gratitude Gardens (Washington); Richard Everett Farm, LLC (Nebraska); Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc. (Wisconsin); Genesis Farm (New Jersey); Chispas Farms, LLC (New Mexico); Kirschenmann Family Farms, Inc. (North Dakota); Midheaven Farms (Minnesota); Koskan Farms (South Dakota); California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm (North Dakota); Taylor Farms, Inc. (Utah); Jardin del Alma (New Mexico); Ron Gargasz Organic Farms (Pennsylvania); Abundant Acres (Missouri); T & D Willey Farms (California); Quinella Ranch (Saskatchewan); Nature’s Way Farm, Ltd. (Alberta); Levke and Peter Eggers Farm (Alberta); Frey Vineyards, Ltd. (California); Bryce Stephens (Kansas); Chuck Noble (South Dakota); LaRhea Pepper (Texas); Paul Romero (New Mexico); and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr. (Virginia).
In the face of the established historical record of over 100 lawsuits brought against farmers, the amended PUBPAT complaint asserts, “Monsanto implicitly acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non-transgenic farmers,” but in its asserted “commitment” to not sue farmers over “inadvertent,” and “trace” amounts of contamination, the company fails to define either term. Therefore, the Complaint argues, “the clear implication is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic farmers who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.”
When Monsanto sued family farmer Percy Schmeiser in Canada over contamination caused by transgenic seed blown off a passing neighbor’s truck, it cost him a half million dollars to fight them, and he had to mortgage his farm to raise the money, Patterson recalls. In the process, he lost control over 50 years of his own traditional, non-transgenic seed development work, according to Patterson and published reports telling the Schmeiser story. “Monsanto reportedly spent $4 million on their case against Schmeiser,” Patterson says. Percy Schmeiser told him Monsanto had 19 lawyers at one point in the courtroom up against his own single lawyer. “In the school yard and in the NFL, that is called ‘piling on,’” he concludes.
“The issues raised in the lawsuit are critical, not just to organic farmers and others who do not want to grow genetically-modified (transgenic) crops,” Gerritsen says, but “also to the safety of food and everyone who eats—and that includes everyone concerned about environmental protection and public health.” As Gerritsen sees the lawsuit, “This is not just a minor dispute between a few family farmers and a powerful corporation accustomed to getting its own way; it is a debate over who offers the best and most responsible way to feed the people of the world over the decades and centuries ahead.” Monsanto offers an expedient short-cut with enormous long-term risks and consequences for public health and environmental degradation, he says; “This, we intend to prove in court.”
“We believe Monsanto has anti-competitively and improperly abused their rights under patent law and have used their patents to gain monopoly dominance over major sectors of the seed industry,” said lawyer Ravicher; “They have gained control over as much as 90% of the U.S. corn and soybean seed market.” Independent research on the safety of transgenic food has not been permitted because Monsanto has used its patent control to prevent that, Ravicher adds, though he notes some information has begun to emerge despite the tight control exercised.
Often the most illuminating research findings have come from other nations or from U.S. researchers who have retired from positions where they were formerly under contractual constraint imposed by Monsanto and other biotech companies, Ravicher reports. “The operation of the patent system against the public interest will be an important issue to be examined as part of this case,” Ravicher affirms; “In arguing the invalidity of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patents, we will show how the Patent and Trademark Office has too readily and even profligately served the interest of politically-influential corporations at the expense of the public.”
“The USDA, the White House, and the Congress have evaded responsibility to protect the public from the potential and unstudied dangers of transgenic food, not even requiring careful, long-term, independent testing nor the clear GMO labeling long-demanded by the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens,” states Bryce Stephens, a Kansas wheat farmer, who is OSGATA’s vice-president. “President Obama said he wanted to see mandatory GMO labeling during his 2008 presidential campaign, but he has not provided it,” Stephens reminds us. “We need someone to act in the public’s defense if our officials will not,” he says, and that is part of the motivation for Stephens’s decision to join the case as an individual plaintiff alongside his participation in plaintiff organizations.
Stephens is also a spokesman for the second leading plaintiff in the case, the Organic Crop Improvement Association-International (OCIA). He points out, “Long-term, fully objective, independent, multi-generational studies about the safety of transgenic food are scarce world-wide and virtually non-existent in the United States; studies have not been done in the U.S. to replicate, verify, or rebut the findings of studies undertaken in other nations.”
“When GMO crops were first given the green light to enter the market in 1992 by the Bush-Quayle administration, they were declared ‘Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS)’ based almost entirely on internal industry studies and industry-sponsored research done under controlling company contract,” Stephens states. “Given the serious potential long-term dangers and only minimally and briefly-studied risks, this was reprehensibly irresponsible, and the government has not shown any more prudence over the years since 1992,” Stephens charges. “With the long-term health consequences of GMO food yet to be understood and in the absence of objective studies, we have all been involuntarily co-opted into a giant biotech industry experiment,” he concludes; “Our citizens and the people of the world deserve better than that.”
For more information, contact:
Daniel Ravicher, press@pubpat.org or 212. 545. 5337
Jim Gerritsen, press@osgata.org or 207-425-7741
Bryce Stephens, sfarms@ruraltel.net or 785-678-2475
Don Patterson, paedc@aol.com or 434-249-7490
Spearheaded by the Center for Biological diversity, OSGATA has joined the with a coalition of organic farmers, conservationists and anti-pesticide organizations to stop the spread of this devastating disease. The coalition is asking the government to restrict public access to caves and mines on federal lands across the west. These protected environments will provide safe havens for unaffected bat colonies.
“The West’s millions of acres of public, federal land offer our best chance to preserve a reservoir of uninfected bats—if not indefinitely, then at least for a few crucial years while scientists work to find a cure,” says Matteson. “Keeping people from moving the fungus into the West is a biological and moral imperative, and the time to act is now.”
Why are bats important?
1) Bats play a critical role controlling insect populations. A single bat can consume thousands of insects in one night.
2) Bats play a critical role in protecting our agricultural crops from pest damage. A study estimates that bats save 3.7 to 53 billion dollars in pest damage to our agricultural crops.
Why is OSGATA joining this coalition? Bats play a critical role in providing natural pest control essential to organic farming systems.
PLEASE HELP US SAVE OUR BATS
>>Find out what you can do at www.saveourbats.org<<
Article Courtesy of knowwhereyourfoodcomesfrom.com
According to a Federal lawsuit recently filed by the Public Patent Foundation [www.pubpat.org] in the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc. [www.nofamass.org] and 59 other plaintiffs, Monsanto Corporation has bullied farmers who have resisted its Round-Up Ready Technology [Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, 11 CIV 2163, Judge Naomi Buchwald). According to Daniel Ben Ravicher (University of Virginia Law School, 2001), lead attorney in the case and the Public Patent Foundation's Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Cardozo School of Law in New York City, "it seems quite perverse that a farmer contaminated by [transgenic seed] could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”
Monsanto, with revenue of $10.5 billion and operating income of $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2010, is a Goliath in the “global proprietary seed market.” It markets and sells transgenic seed (also known as genetically modified or genetically engineered seed), and according to the legal complaint, Monsanto sells Roundup Ready seed for corn, canola, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa and cotton. In the United States, plaintiffs assert that “Monsanto’s control of the seed market is so high that over 85-90% of all soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola grown in the U.S. contains Monsanto’s patented genes.”
The plaintiffs are largely organic farmers and organic seed businesses who do not want to use or sell transgenic seed, as well as some non-organic farmers who wish to farm without transgenic seed. Plaintiffs fear that they could beperversely accused by Monsanto of patent infringement and bring their lawsuit to obtain a declaratory judgment “to protect themselves from ever being accused of infringing patents on transgenic seed.” They cite a long history of Monsanto aggressively asserting its patents for transgenic seeds against hundreds of farmers, including farmers who became contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed through no fault of their own. This fear “causes some of the farming plaintiffs to forgo growing certain crops, including corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, soybeans and alfalfa, since it is widely known that those crops are currently under severe threat of transgenic seed contamination.”
The plaintiffs sketch out in detail the nature of Monsanto’s transgenic seeds and forcefully assert that “Society stands on the precipice of forever being bound to transgenic agriculture and transgenic food.” Transgenic seeds are genetically engineered through the introduction of foreign genes and regulatory sequences into the seeds’ genome. Monsanto’s most predominant transgenic trait is “glyphosate tolerance” which makes crops tolerant of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide called Roundup. Roundup causes severe injury or destruction when applied to crops that are not glyphosate tolerant.
Plaintiffs claim that coexistence between transgenic seed and organic seed is impossible because transgenic seed contaminates and eventually overcomes organic seed. Organic canola has become virtually extinct as a result of transgenic seed contamination according to the complaint, and organic corn, soybean, cotton, sugar beet, and alfalfa face the same fate “as transgenic seed has been released by Monsanto for each of those crops.”
In support of their pursuit of a declaratory judgment that “should they ever be contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, they need not fear being sued for patent infringement,” the plaintiffs assert that Monsanto’s patents on transgenic seed are invalid. They argue that “only technology with a beneficial societal use may be patented” and vigorously assert several other arguments as a basis to invalidate Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents. They make some very technical arguments rooted in patent law: (1) Monsanto violated the prohibition in the patent law against “double patenting” since later patents are not “patentably distinct from a patent it already owns” and (2) it failed to satisfied patent law requirements of “written description, enablement and best mode.” The plaintiffs also contend that Monsanto should be equitably estopped from asserting patent rights due to its misuse of its patents, which includes trespass when its transgenic seed contaminates another. Plaintiffs make a negligence-type argument that Monsanto “sells, licenses and distributes its transgenic seed in a manner such that contamination of Plaintiffs is reasonably foreseeable.” In their exhaustive complaint of 47 pages, the plaintiffs also argue that even if Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents are deemed valid and held to be infringed and enforceable against them, Monsanto lacks entitlement to any remedy under law or equity “as no injury happens to Monsanto.”
A major focus of the complaint is to establish the factual basis for the plaintiffs’ assertion that Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents lack a “beneficial societal use” which justifies their invalidation. Plaintiffs maintain that as Monsanto’s transgenic seed becomes more widely used, then so too will glyphosate (Roundup) “which studies have shown is harmful to human health.” Plaintiffs contend that “There are also serious questions about whether transgenic seeditself has an effect on human health” [emphasis added]. Plaintiffs also include allegations concerning the case of Liberty Link rice “as evidence of the harm farmers can suffer as a result of contamination of their crop with transgenic genes.” Liberty Link rice was a rice variety genetically engineered to tolerate Liberty herbicide. It was field-tested on a small number of sites between 1999 and 2001 but had not been approved for human consumption. In 2006, extensive contamination of the commercial rice supply by Liberty Link transgenic genes was discovered which led to multiple countries banning the importation of U.S. rice, implementation of strict testing requirements, and removal from the market of entire rice varieties: “The worldwide total economic loss due to the contamination event was estimated at $741 million to $1.285 billion.”
Moreover, plaintiffs allege that while transgenic seed poses many dangers for society, “its purported benefits have not been achieved.” They claim that “Monsanto’s propaganda surrounding transgenic seed expresses a promise that its use will increase the quantity of production that can be achieved with the same amount of land.” Instead, “studies have shown that there is actually no meaningful improvement in yield from using transgenic seed.” Plaintiffs reference a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of West Virginia last fall “after his office determined that several published tests contradicted the yield results claimed by Monsanto in its advertising” [www.wvago.gov/press.cfm?ID=541&fx=more]. They also assert that Monsanto’s “promise” that use of transgenic seeds “will result in less pesticide and herbicide use” has been disproven by studies, and that evidence shows that the increased use of glyphosate [Roundup] caused by Monsanto’s transgenic seed “has in turn caused weeds to become resistant to the herbicide” citing an article ontenacious new superweeds in the New York Times: Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds by W. Neuman and A. Pollack (May 3, 2010) [www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html].
The complaint raises allegations concerning Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of its patents for transgenic seeds noting that “500 farmers are investigated for patent infringement each year” and that “Between 1997 and April 2010, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against farmers in at least 27 different states for alleged infringement of its transgenic seed patents and/or breach of its licene to those patents.” Most serious is the allegation that “Monsanto has made accusations of patent infringement against those who never wished to possess its transgenic seed.” The complaint cites the nationally broadcast CBS Evening News segment entitled, “Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers: Monsanto Goes to Great Lengths to Protect Its Patents on Genetically Modified Crops” [www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml].
The complaint minimizes Monsanto’s commitment to “not exercise our patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means” on a page entitled “Monsanto’s Commitment: Farmers and Patents” on its website [www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/commitment-farmers-patents.aspx]. Plaintiffs assert that this commitment by Monsanto fails to define what is meant by “trace amounts” or “inadvertent means.” Plaintiffs fear that Monsanto will assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic seed farmers “who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.”
In an insightful article, entitled Food Culture, with the subtitle, Genetically modified agriculture holds both the promise of drought and virus-resistant crops and the peril of unraveling the natural food chain, in a recent issue of Audubon Magazine, March-April 2011 [www.audubonmagazine.org/features1103/biotech.html], writer Alisa Opar notes that the “USDA to date has approved more than 70 applications for transgenic plants.” Since the first transgenic crops were planted 15 years ago, according to Ms. Opar, their use has “skyrocketed.” With reference to Monsanto’s transgenic seed with the glyphosate-resistant trait, she notes that “Glyphosate-resistant weeds, like horseweed, are popping up,” and she writes that “Monsanto’s solution is to engineer a trait for resistance to an older herbicide called dicamba.” Such step would put even more pesticides into the environment, and Penn State weed ecologist Dave Mortensen is quoted as estimating that “herbicide use on [soybeans] will increase by 70 percent in a few years.” A scientist from the Center for Food Safety worries that “Dicamba is a lot nastier than glyphosate, because of volatilization and its toxicity.” Ms. Opar also cites the testimony of Steve Smith, director of agriculture for Red Gold, America’s largest private canned-tomato processor in testimony before Congress: “The widespread use of dicamba herbicide possesses the single most serious threat to the future of the specialty crop industry in the Midwest.” With the filing of their lawsuit, the plaintiffs will compel a federal court to address one major argument against genetically modified food crops: the contamination of crops grown by organic and other non-GMO farmers. Still, as the Audubon Magazine article suggests, there are other serious perils on the horizon.
Among the sixty Davids, four plaintiffs stand out as parties who have already been damaged by the actions of the defendants, Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC. If their allegations can be proven, a defense by Monsanto rooted in a “lack of ripeness” of the complaint would seem without merit. Plaintiff North Outback Farm, an organic farm in Wales, North Dakota, owned and operated by Janet and Terry Jacobson, is a grain and livestock farm on which the Jacobsons grow alfalfa, wheat, oats and flax. Their farm is in an area ideally suited for growing canola, but they cannot grow canola because of the widespread use of transgenic canola seed in their area posing a contamination threat for any organic canola crop they may wish to grow. Similarly, Abundant Acres, a farm in Laclede County, Missouri primarily grows field crops for seed production. In the past, the farm has grown corn and soybeans “but stopped for fear of transgenic contamination, and possible resultant litigation.” Plaintiff Bryce Stephens, a certified organic farmer in Jennings, Kansas, whose farm has been certified organic since 1994, previously grew organic corn and soybeans, but discontinued those crops due to the threat of transgenic seed contamination.
In addition to the above three plaintiffs, twenty-three other farms and farmers are named as plaintiffs and are located throughout the United States and Canada: (1) Alba Ranch, a diversified organic family farm/ranch in the Wolf River Valley in northeastern Kansas, (2) Wild Plum Farm, an organically certified farm in Dixon, Montana, (3) Gratitude Gardens, a certified organic seed grower in Concrete, Washington, (4) Richard Everett Farm, LLC, a USDA certified organic farm in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, (5) Philadelphia Community Farm, a community supported (CSA) farm for twenty-two years, near Osceola, Wisconsin, (6) Genesis Farm, a community-supported garden that grows a variety of Biodynamic cultivated vegetables, herbs and fruits, in Blairstown, New Jersey, (7) Chispas Farms LLC, an organic farm in Albuquerque, New Mexico, (8) Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc., a certified organic farm (which used to grow canola), in South Central, North Dakota, (9) Midheaven Farms, a Biodynamic farm in Park Rapids, Minnesota, (10) Koskan Farms, a certified organic farm in Wood, South Dakota, (11) California Cloverleaf Farms, an organic dairy farm in Merced County, California, (12) Taylor Farms, Inc, an organic seed farm in Remonton, Utah, (13) Jardin Del Alma, a certified organic seed producer in Monticello, New Mexico, (14) Ron Gargasz Organic Farms, an organic farm in Volant, Pennsylvania, (15) T & D Willey Farms, a certified organic farm in Madera, California, (16) Quinella Ranch, a certified organic farm in Saskatchewan, Canada, (17) Nature’s Way Farm Ltd, an organic farm in Alberta, Canada, (18) Levke and Peter Eggers Farm, a strongly anti-transgenic seed farm in Alberta, Canada, (19) Frey Vineyards, Ltd, which grows wheat and other crops in its certified Biodynamic and Organic vineyards, (20) Chuck Noble, a conventional farmer in South Dakota who “intends to keep his farm free of genetically engineered traits”, (21) Larhea Pepper, an organic cotton farmer in O’Donnell, Texas, (22) Paul Romero, an organic farmer in Espanola, New Mexico, and (23) Donald Wright Patterson, Jr., who desires to farm organic alfalfa, possibly at “the family farmstead” in Frederick County, Virginia where his farming ancestors settled in 1730.
Twelve seed businesses are also named as plaintiffs: (1) Fedco Seeds Inc. located in Waterville and Clinton, Maine [www.fedcoseeds.com], (2) Adaptive Seeds, LLC, located in Sweet Home, Oregon [www.adaptiveseeds.com], (3) Sow True Seed based in Asheville, North Carolina [http://sowtrueseed.com], (4) Southern Exposure Seed Exchange located in Mineral, Virginia [www.southernexposure.com], (5) Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds based in Canada that sells seed in the United States [www.sprouting.com], (6) Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC, based in Mansfield, Missouri [http://rareseeds.com], (7) Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC, based in Wethersfield, Connecticut [http://comstockferre.com], (8) Seedkeepers, LLC based in Santa Barbara, California [http://ediblegardens.com], (9) Siskiyou Seeds based in Williams, Oregon [www.siskiyouseeds.com], (10) Countryside Organics located in Waynesboro, Virginia [www.countrysidenatural.com], (11) Cuatro Puertas, a New Mexico community development corporation, which operates the Arid Crop Seed Cache, a seed collection established to rescue and reintroduce native, heirloom and forgotten crops, and (12) Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd., based in Canada that sells seed in the United States [www.interlakeforageseeds.com].
The third category of plaintiffs consists of twenty-two agriculture membership organizations or not-for-profit public interest organizations: (1) Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association [www.osgata.org], (2) Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. [www.ocia.org], (3) OCIA Research and Education Inc. [www.ocia.org/RE], (4) The Cornucopia Institute [www.cornucopia.org], (5) Demeter Association, Inc., the American chapter of Demeter International, the world’s only certifier of Biodynamic farms [www.demeter-usa.org], (6) Navdanya International [www.navdanya.org], (7) Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association [www.mofga.org], (8) Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc. [www.nofamass.org], (9) Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont [http://nofavt.org], (10) Rural Vermont, a membership organization that envisions a Vermont local food system which is self-reliant and based on reverence for the earth [www.ruralvermont.org/], (11) Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (www.oeffa.org), (12) Southeast Iowa Organic Association, the Iowa Chapter of OCIA International, (13) Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society [www.npsas.org], (14) Mendocino Organic Network [www.mendocinorenegade.com], (15) Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance [www.nodpa.com], (16) Canadian Organic Growers [www.cog.ca], (17) Family Farmer Seed Cooperative [http://organicseedcoop.com], (18)Sustainable Living Systems [www.sustainablelivingsystems.org], (19) Global Organic Alliance [www.goa-online.org], (20) Food Democracy Now! [www.fooddemocracynow.org], (21) Family Farm Defenders Inc. [http://familyfarmers.org], and (22) Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund [www.farmtoconsumer.org].
(FW Barrie 5/27/11)
“Today is Independence Day for America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto’s threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto’s genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace – to decide what kind of food they will feed their families – and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose. Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto’s genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food.”
ORGANIC FARMERS AND SEED SELLERS SUE MONSANTO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM PATENTS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED
__________________________________________________________________
Preemptive Action Seeks Ruling That Would Prohibit Monsanto From Suing Organic Farmers and Seed Growers If Contaminated By Roundup Ready Seed
NEW YORK – March 29, 2011 – On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.
“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s transgenic seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”
Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of contamination. Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa now face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too. Monsanto is developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT’s Ravicher, plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case. Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false.
“Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that’s not possible, and it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher. “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB’s and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”
The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; 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; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, 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; Quinella Ranch; Nature’s Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.
Many of the plaintiffs made statements upon filing of the suit today.
Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association based in Montrose, Colorado, said, “Today is Independence Day for America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto’s threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto’s genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace – to decide what kind of food they will feed their families – and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose. Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto’s genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food.”
Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, “Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified organisms. Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs. On behalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice.”
Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, “The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation. Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination. We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty. People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people. We must protect the environment, farmers livelihood, public health and people’s right to non GMO food contamination.”
Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said, “It’s outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically certified or into the rapidly growing ‘Buy Local’ market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto.”
David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont said, “Vermont’s farmers have worked hard to meet consumers’ growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to them that Monsanto’s continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and regional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods.”
Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, “For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift. Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination.”
Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems in Victor, Montana, said, “The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate them for some supposed common good, fine. Then we must remove the profit motive. The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation.”
David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, “None of Monsanto’s original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto’s patented genes can blow onto another farmer’s fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto’s team of belligerent lawyers. Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy.”
Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, “Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts. Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington. We need to court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their ‘technology,’ can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country. It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted.”
“Roundup Ready” Alfalfa Will Increase Pesticide Use and Cause Grave Harm to Environment and Organic Industry
USDA Failures Guarantee Transgenic Contamination, Creation of More Superweeds
Today, attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), arguing that the agency’s recent unrestricted approval of genetically engineered (GE), “Roundup Ready” Alfalfa was unlawful. The GE crop is engineered to be immune to the herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto markets as Roundup. USDA data show that 93% of all the alfalfa planted by farmers in the U.S. is grown without the use of any herbicides. With the full deregulation of GE alfalfa, USDA estimates that up to 23 million more pounds of toxic herbicides will be released into the environment each year.
“USDA has once again failed to provide adequate oversight of a biotech crop,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This reckless approval flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that GE alfalfa threatens the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as significant harm to the environment. APHIS has refused to apply and enforce the law and instead has chosen to bow to the wishes of the biotech industry.”
This is the second case challenging the legality of USDA’s handling of GE alfalfa. In 2007, in another case brought by CFS, a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of the engineered crop violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of Roundup. The case resulted in USDA undertaking a court-ordered four-year study of GE alfalfa’s impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Remarkably, it marked the first time USDA had ever undertaken such a study, known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in over 15 years of approving GE crops for commercial production. While USDA worked on the EIS, GE alfalfa remained unlawful to plant or sell, a ban that remained in place despite Monsanto appealing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff commented: “We expect Monsanto to force-feed people genetically engineered crops—that’s its business model. We hoped for better from the USDA, which has much broader responsibilities. GE alfalfa will greatly increase use of toxic chemicals from coast to coast, threatens the organic dairy industry, and will have farmers going back to Monsanto every year to buy its patented seed and Roundup.”
The plaintiffs include a diverse coalition of conventional and organic farmers, dairies and agricultural associations, and environmental and consumer groups: CFS, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, California Farmers Union, Dakota Resources Council, Geertson Seed Farms, National Family Farm Coalition, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Sierra Club, Trask Family Seeds and Western Organization of Resource Councils.
“We in the farm sector are dissatisfied but not surprised at the lack of courage from USDA to prohibit Roundup Ready alfalfa and defend family farmers,” said plaintiff farmer Pat Trask.
Known as the “queen of forages,” alfalfa is the key feedstock for the dairy industry. Organic dairies stand to lose their source of organic feed, a requirement for organic dairy, including milk and yogurt products. The organic sector is the most vibrant part of U.S. agriculture, now a 26 billion dollar a year industry and growing 20% annually.
“Approving the unrestricted planting of GE alfalfa is a blatant case of the USDA serving one form of agriculture at the expense of all others,” says plaintiff Ed Maltby, Executive Director of the Northeast Alliance of Organic Dairy Producers. “If this decision is not remedied, the result will be lost livelihoods for organic dairy farmers, loss of choice for farmers and consumers, and no transparency about GE contamination of our foods.”
Because alfalfa is pollinated by bees that can fly and cross-pollinate between fields and feral sources many miles apart, the engineered crop will contaminate natural alfalfa varieties. Roundup Ready alfalfa is the first engineered perennial crop, meaning it remains in the ground for 3-6 years and is widely prevalent in wild or feral form throughout America, further increasing the likelihood and extent of transgenic contamination.
“USDA’s review is inaccurate and completely failed to consider critical issues. The decision to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa opens the door to widespread transgenic contamination, costing farmers their markets, reputation and ability to grow natural varieties,” said plaintiff farmer Phil Geertson.
“We are an organic, grass-fed beef operation relying on alfalfa in pasture mix and for winter feed. GE alfalfa means contamination of all alfalfa seeds within a few years. Our options include giving up organic production at great revenue loss or finding another forage at great cost increase,” says organic beef producer Jim Munsch from Wisconsin.
Approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa will spur the glyphosate-resistant epidemic that is already regarded as one of the most serious challenges facing U.S. agriculture. Weeds evolve resistance to glyphosate just as bacteria evolve immunity to overused antibiotics. While other Roundup Ready crops spawned the epidemic, Roundup Ready alfalfa will exacerbate it by increasing the frequency and intensity of glyphosate use on millions of acres of cropland. Farmers respond to resistant weeds by applying more and more herbicides, soil-eroding tillage operations, and even hand-weeding on hundreds of thousands of acres. Such “superweeds” have expanded four-fold to infest over 10 million acres since just 2008, with some projecting 38 million acres by 2013. Alfalfa, the fourth most prevalent crop in the U.S., is grown on over 20 million acres, spanning every state.
“Alfalfa grows in dense stands that naturally suppress weeds, and so has traditionally been the one crop in farmers’ rotations that provides a much-needed break from the onslaught of toxic herbicides. Roundup Ready alfalfa will only foster still more resistant weeds, and thereby increase the pesticide dependence of U.S. agriculture beyond already unsustainable levels,” said Bill Freese, CFS Science Policy Analyst.
The latest USDA data show that less than 10 percent of alfalfa acres are sprayed with any herbicide, and consequently, GE alfalfa will dramatically increase the use of such chemicals across the country, with all of their attendant hazards to wildlife, plants, groundwater, and people.
From The Center For Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
P: (202)547-9359, F: (202)547-9429
office@centerforfoodsafety.org
National Organic Coalition’s (NOC) piece on GMO Contamination Prevention: What Will It Take.COEXISTENCE AND GMO CONTAMINATION website: http://www.nationalorganiccoalition.org/GMO/GMOContaminationPrevention.pdf.
