Re: force behind market forces & GM crops

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not have the details on anything but the Schmeiser part is grossly
misleading. Notice too how Monbiot goes from Schmeiser maintains that the
rape (canola) plants were the result of pollution to asserting that they
were the result of pollution.
   Oh. Just by the by, many fields had percentages of GM canola well over 90
per cent. On these fields the GM canola was hardly thinly spread. How can
leftists  continue to support and believe people such as Monbiot who
obviously make no attempt to even
check their facts. I have a whole folder on the Schmeiser affair that I
assembled and posted to a few groups who make the sorts of claims that
Monbiot does. Of course there was nary a thank you or even acknowledgement
of the receipt of my material, even though it contains sterling quotes from
Percy Schmeiser himself about how he uses Roundup to do preharvest
burnoffs....lol. He mentions this to counter Monsanto's evidence that
Schmeiser had bought quite large amounts of Roundup and so probably was
using it on his Roundup Ready canola!

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Here is a former post that is part of the folder:]


pen-l
<-- Chronological -->       Find   <-- Thread -->

Relevance of Schmeiser decision on saving seed..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: Ken Hanly
Subject: Relevance of Schmeiser decision on saving seed..
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:50:17 -0700

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Note that there is no question of saving seed in general raised by the
decision as some anti-gm groups claim so loudly. There is not even a problem
for those who happen to have a few GM volunteers in their crops. The judge
notes that several farmers testified that they had found GM canola
volunteers in their own crops and Monsanto had removed them at Monsanto's
expense. The samples taken from Schmeiser were taken one year from road
allowances, also from samples at a seed cleaning plant, and later under
court order. The percentage of Roundup Ready tolerant canola plants varied
but many fields
were in the high ninety percent range. Experts claimed there is no possible
way this could be contamination. The judge accepted that evidence. And
Schmeiser KNEW he was planting such canola. He is not some innocent not
knowing that some of the canola he is planting is GM canola.
   Cheers, Ken Hanly

Part of decision:

124] For the defendants it is urged that a finding of infringement will
adversely affect the
longstanding right of a farmer to save his own seed for use for another
crop. In particular it
is urged that those who do not purchase Roundup Ready canola seed but find
the plant
invading their land would be precluded from saving their own seed for use
another year since
their crop may be contaminated without action by the farmer on whose land
plants containing
the patented gene are found.
[125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop.
I have found
that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to
have known was
Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain
the plaintiffs'
patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from
occasional or
limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are
Roundup
resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to
have known was
Roundup tolerant.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


<-- Chronological -->   <-- Thread -->

    Reply via email to


----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:35 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:16131] force behind market forces & GM crops


> But the solution proposed by the Roushes' lawyers was a prudent one. In
> April, a Canadian farmer called Percy Schmeiser was forced to pay Monsanto
> $85,000, after a court ruled that he had stolen Monsanto's genetic
> material. Schmeiser maintained that the thinly- spread GM rape plants on
> his farm were the result of pollen contamination from his neighbour's
> fields, and he had done all he could to get rid of them. But Monsanto's
> proprietary genes had been found on his land whether he wanted them or
not.
> Following the time- honoured convention that the polluted pays, Mr
> Schmeiser was forced to compensate the company for what he insists was
> invasion by its vegetable vermin.
>