tagged w/ technology fees
-
A court hearing in New York City at the end of this month will determine if a "pre-emptive" lawsuit by a clutch of U.S. and Canadian organic producers against seed and ag chem firm Monsanto will go ahead.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald said she will hear oral arguments Jan. 31 in Manhattan on a motion by St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto to dismiss the suit filed last March 31 by a group of 83 farmers, seed growers and farm organizations.
The suit "seeks court protection for innocent family farmers who may become contaminated by Monsanto seed," according to a release last week from the Colorado-based lead plaintiff, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA).
The suit, the plaintiffs claim, is "to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed."
"Last August we submitted our written rebuttal and it made clear that Monsanto's motion was without merit," OSGATA president Jim Gerritsen, a seed potato grower in northern Maine, said in the release. "Our legal team, from the Public Patent Foundation, is looking forward to orally presenting our position."
Canadian plaintiffs attached to the suit include Ottawa-based Canadian Organic Growers (COG), Quebec advocacy group Union Paysanne, the Manitoba Organic Alliance, the Peace River Organic Producers Association and a number of producers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.
"Monsanto's technology is harmful for organic producers and processors," COG executive director Beth McMahon said in a separate release this week. "To penalize our growers for GMO contamination adds insult to injury, and we won't back down from this fight."
"Never been"
Monsanto's previous suits against farmers for alleged infringement on its patented seed suggest the company "intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and nontransgenic seed farmers who come to possess more than 'trace amounts' of Monsanto's transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault," the plaintiffs claimed last year.
Between 1997 and April 2010, the organic producers' suit claims, 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 license to those patents.
More at the linkA court hearing in New York City at the end of this month will determine if a... more
-
-
http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13556-how-monsanto-tried-to-con-pakistan
NOTE: This is a big story in Pakistan and seems to reflect increasing scepticism in the media about the value of Bt cotton.
--
---
Is Pakistan on the right path on Bt cotton?
Naufil Shahrukh
Weekly Pulse, December 16 2011
http://www.weeklypulse.org/details.aspx?contentID=1603&storylist=2
Cotton remains the second most significant crop in Pakistan after wheat and is the main foreign exchange earning cash crop for us. Our textile industry requires around 2-3 million bales annually to meet its production demands so we import it from India and other places as per requirements. To meet the deficit, the policy makers thought it is imperative that we increase the cotton crop yield and save foreign exchange. Currently we produce on an average between 12-14 million bales. Genetically modified or Bt Cotton was proposed as an option to explore.
A small U.S based, hi-tech or GM Seed and traits company (Monsanto) initially offered Bollgard-1 (BG-1) technology to Pakistan. It later turned out that the company’s patent for this purpose had expired and it was forced to accept this. In a letter written to the Punjab government, its (Monsanto's) Country Head acknowledged this fact. Prior to this, the government was ready to sign an agreement with Monsanto which would have resulted in payment of 'technology fees' to Monsanto worth billions of rupees! Once this information became public knowledge as a result of this letter, the Punjab government rightly called off negotiations in 2008 and ultimately did not sign the proposed agreement on 'BG-1 technology'. This saved the national and provincial exchequer significant money and adopting an outdated technology. Interestingly, Bollgard-1 cotton seeds were being grown in Pakistan since 2004-5 and seemed the bureaucrats negotiating with the US company were unaware of this.
In 2008, the same company came up with a new proposal that it will bring the upgraded Bollgard-2 cotton seed technology. The genetic modification in a cotton seed is that Bollgard-1 seed has a Cry-1AC gene introgressed in addition to its natural genetic make-up and it is effective against Pink, Spotted and American Bollworms or 'Sundee'. The toxin from this gene, tears apart the guts of the Bollworms. Bollgard-2 seed has a gene Cry-2AB in addition to Cry-1AC and is effective against Army Bollworms or 'Sundee' in addition to the previous three. So basically, the bollgard-2 is a minor up gradation to the original Bollgard-1 seed technology.
The company proposed that since Pakistan has weak 'Intellectual Property Rights' or IPRs therefore, it needed Government protection or 'Back-stop' to succeed in Pakistan as 'unscrupulous' elements could copy or replicate its Bollgard-2 technology. It signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the then Federal Ministry of Food & Agriculture in April, 2010 which envisaged that provincial governments of the Punjab and possibly Sindh should sign agreements with the company. In brief, the company would sell the Bollgard-2 seeds in the market however, in case people copied or replicated the technology or grew 'saved' seeds, a third party will be engaged which will conduct a survey to see how much seed was sold by the company in the market and the remaining quantity would be classified as 'unpaid' seed. The company indulges in similar practices in the US and Canada where it has sued scores of farmers for ‘saved seeds’.
Government was then to pay the company an amount of 21 U.S dollars per acre for the 'unpaid' acres as ‘compensation for losses’, royalty and ‘backstop’ agreements. Practically, it could mean that in Punjab, if such a survey 'proved' that 4 million acre worth of seed was sold by Monsanto and 2 million was 'unauthorized' or obtained/grown through other channels, Monsanto would be paid 21 U.S dollars per acre for those two million acres! This would mean a sum of US dollars 42000000/- will be paid to the company by the government every year. Nowhere in the world does such 'government backstop' guarantees or arrangement exists.
At this point in time in fact, even mandatory regulatory field trials were not complete when the MOU was signed in April, 2010. So there was no way to know, whether this technology would increase cotton yield in Pakistan or not! But some elements within Punjab bureaucracy, continuously tried to get the agreement signed for this technology between Monsanto and the Punjab Government.
In November, 2010, bureaucracy almost managed to get the Monsanto proposal approved by the Punjab Government. However, the Chief Minister Punjab came to know about the relevant issues and stepped in to prevent a hasty decision. It was learnt that Bollgard-1 and 2 technology is completely ineffective against Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCuV), White Fly and Mealy Bugs. These pests are the main reason why Pakistan Cotton crop loses 2-3 million bales every year. Thus, while the company would have been selling the seeds and making money through Government ‘compensation’ and sovereign guarantees every year, the real problems were still there and the ‘latest technology’ would have cost the Punjab government between 30-70 million U.S dollars every year with no guarantees of yield increase. The regulatory trials by this company in 2010, proved its technology was ineffective against the main pests (CLCuV etc) in Pakistan.
More at the link
http://c1eatdrinkbettercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/07/Monsanto-BT-Cotton.jpghttp://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13556-how-monsanto-tried-to-con-pakistan... more
-
-
I'll state straight away, I hate/loathe/despise/abhor Monsanto. They are evil, not metaphorically evil, but actually evil. And as for our politicians who should have protected us from Monsanto; well, there’s a special circle of Hell reserved just for them.
I came across this video in the twitterverse and wanted to share it because it gives you a good idea of what is involved in actually using GM seed and the (hoocoodanode!?) consequences. Farmer to Farmer.
I ask you: What do we do to extricate ourselves from this politico-corporate nightmare?I'll state straight away, I hate/loathe/despise/abhor Monsanto. They are evil,... more
-
-
NEW YORK - New threats by Monsanto have led to the filing of an amended complaint [link] 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 responsethey 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 theyare 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 & 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.
cont.NEW YORK - New threats by Monsanto have led to the filing of an amended complaint... more
-
-
As of today truly global action is being taken against patents on seed, plants, farm animals, parts thereof including gene sequences and food. Over 100 organisations from all parts of the world are alerting the public and warning of the dangers of increasing monopoly rights on basic resources of farm and food production. Seed, plants and farm animals as well as food production chains are becoming progressively subject to monopoly rights imposed by worldwide patents. More and more patents have been filed and now include claims covering the conventional breeding of plants and animals. They are actually being claimed by industry as their inventions!
If this trend is not stopped these developments will impact on farmers, smaller-scale breeders, food producers and consumers. Leaving the control over seeds to multinational corporations means leaving decisions on choice in the food market and the way food is produced to those whose first aim is to make a profit, not provide food security. Farmers in particular are increasingly dependent on agrochemical and seed corporations. Breeding is becoming more difficult as access to genetic resources is hampered by the restrictions that patents impose. This situation will result in fewer innovations urgently needed for food safety.
The US company Monsanto recently filed patent application WO2008021413, which – in more than 1000 pages - makes 175 claims to misappropriate various gene sequences and genetic variations, especially in soy and maize. Monsanto even goes as far as to explicitly claim all relevant maize and soy plants inheriting those genetic elements and its uses in food, feed and biomass. In a further patent application, WO 2009011847, Monsanto makes broad claims covering methods for cattle breeding, for the animals themselves as well as “milk, cheese, butter and meat”. These patents and many others filed by various companies such as Dupont and Syngenta are the reason why Navdanya is calling upon politicians and patent offices around the world to ensure that such patents cannot and will not be granted:
“A radical change both in patent legislation and the practice of patent offices is needed to eliminate patents on plants and farm animals. Corporations should not be allowed to continue misappropriation and monopolisation of seeds, plants and farm animals via patent law. Otherwise these patents will become a major threat to global food security and regional food sovereignty.”
Navdanya is calling upon organisations and individuals to sign the joint global alert posted on the website of the ‘no patents on seeds' coalition. Global days of action against patents on farm and food production are planned from the end of April until July 2010. They will end in a public hearing on 20 July at the European Patent Office in Munich, Germany. This hearing will be on e on a patent filed for the conventional breeding of broccoli which hat will lead to a precedent decision being made in Europe. Navdanya will inform the public about these activities and will support it.As of today truly global action is being taken against patents on seed, plants, farm... more
-
-
• In Cuiaba, Aprosoja is preparing a court action against Monsanto, and in Sinop, steps are being taken to follow suit
[English translation courtesy Cert ID Brazil and GM-free Ireland]
Growers in [the Brazilian State of] Mato Grosso have declared war against Monsanto, the multinational corporate owner of the GMO soya technology known as RR (Roundup Ready). After exhausting all attempts to engage the company in dialogue, the growers are now considering legal action. In Cuiaba, Aprosoja (the Association of Soya and Corn Producers Association of the State of Mato Grosso) is preparing a lawsuit. In Sinop (500km North of Cuiaba) the growers are looking to sue the company as well.
Aprosoya wants to determine if the [patent] royalty fee paid by the soya growers is actualy due. "We want to know what sort of patent is generating this type of fee, because depending on the type, the company does not have the right to charge us anything at all. We also need to know the patent's validity period," explains the President of Aprosoja, Mr. Glauber Silveira.
In Mato Grosso, growers increased the cultivated area of GMOs from 2.6 million hectares (2008/09 crop) to approximately 3 million hectares in this year's crop. The expansion of the area will increase Monsanto's profit from R$39 million (€15.2m) to R$45 million (€15.6m), an increase of 15.38%. According to calculations made by the producers, the fee Monanto charged for the use of its patent amounts to R$15.00 (€5.85) per hectare.
Aprosoja intends to issue a notification demanding that Monsanto provide proper justification regarding the royalty fees. "We have been informed that Monsanto is inducing the seed producers of Mato Grosso to provide only GMO seeds", denounces Mr. Silveira. In Mato Grosso the GMO plantation now occupies half of the entire cultivated area of soya, comprising about 6 million hectares.
SINOP - Following several meetings without any positive results, the Sinop Rural Union is also planning to sue Monsanto. Approximately 50% of the crop fields in the Northern Region of Mato Grosso are currently cultivated with GMO varieties. These differ from the conventional because of their resistance to herbicides containing glyphosate, used in desiccation before and after planting to eliminate all kinds of weeds.
This kind of resistance enables the growers to apply the herbicide on the soya only, thus reducing their production costs and the number of herbicide applications. But the sectors' questions concern the royalty fees imposed by Monsanto for their use of the seed.
The president of the Union, Mr. Antônio Galvan, explained that two collections are made: The first one being when the seed is bought (by bank order). "In January they charged R$0.45 per kilo of seed, which is equivalent to 30% of the price of each sack.
The main questioning lies on the second collection which is made when the product is leaving the fields. When it arrives at the warehouses the grain is tested and identified as GMO or non-GMO. The problem occurs when, in many cases, conventional oleaginous seeds are contaminated and the growers end up having to pay royalties without having acquired any GMO seeds in the first place.• In Cuiaba, Aprosoja is preparing a court action against Monsanto, and in Sinop,... more
-
