Canola

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » Canola

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author

Message

Badant

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:45 am

Guest

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml

"Can you imagine the fear in a farm family when they get a letter from
a multi-billion dollar corportion {Monsanto} asking for many thousands
of dollars so the company might not take them to court?!

Another clause: You're not allowed to show this letter to anyone and
you're not allowed to tell anyone that you've received this letter
from Monsanto or what Monsanto has done to you. So, a total
suppression of farmers rights, freedom of speech and expression.

If they can't find a farmer at home and they don't know his mailing
address, they can go to the local municipality and get the location of
his land. They will then use a small airplane or helicopter and drop a
Monsanto Roundup herbicide spray bomb on the field. It covers about 30
feet in diameter, in the centre of a canola or soybean field.

About 12 days after Roundup has time to activate, they'll fly back. If
the crop, which was hit by the spray, has died they'll know the farmer
has not been using Monsanto's Roundup, but if it hasn't died, God help
the farmer."

Dean Ronn

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:59 am

Guest

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401232145.1e2ab320@posting.google.com...

Quote:

Don't pity poor Percy

The Leader-Post (Regina)

January 21, 2004

By Kevin Hursh

Poor, downtrodden Percy. Some of those evil Roundup Ready canola seeds blew
onto his property from passing trucks and now the huge multinational
monster known as Monsanto is trying to crush him like a bug.

What a hero for farmers everywhere. What an international icon. What a
David taking on Goliath.

What a crock!

Many people love to cheer for the underdog and many people love to see
anyone put the screws to large agri-business.

But the Schmeiser versus Monsanto case before the Supreme Court of Canada
has lost any semblance of rational perspective.

Monsanto has no interest in going after farmers who by accident have
Roundup Ready canola on their land. In fact, the accidental spread of the
crop is a worry and embarrassment for the company.

Most of the news stories don't mention the fact that Schmeiser had more
than a thousand acres of canola, which by independent analysis was shown to
be well over 90-per-cent Roundup Ready. He isn't quite the innocent
bystander portrayed in many media reports.

Percy has become an international star by dragging the issue through the
court system. That was his choice.

How sorry should we feel about his mounting court costs?

No one seems to be saying how many dollars misguided environmental bleeding
hearts have contributed to his campaign. His stardom may actually be a net
benefit, with all the limelight an added bonus.

Patenting plant genes is an interesting issue and one that is worthy of
debate, but unfortunately the Schmeiser case has generated all sorts of
misconceptions about agriculture.

Herbicide-tolerant crops and genetically modified crops are not synonymous.
Herbicide tolerance has often been achieved through
conventional plant-breeding methods.

Clearfield canola is a prime example. Clearfield lentils are now being
developed and again this is through conventional plant breeding. They will
not be considered GM (genetically modified).

Some people seem to believe that if Schmeiser wins the Supreme Court
challenge, GM crop development will stop. That's not the case.

Certainly, Canada will no longer look like a hospitable nation in which to
invest research dollars, but there are other ways for companies to get paid
for GM crops. The top one on the list is hybrids and the canola industry is
already moving in that direction.

With hybrids, the crop a farmer produces is not suitable as seed. Thus, to
use a hybrid system, a farmer has to buy new seed each year.

If patenting of genes is struck down by the Supreme Court, companies may
still be able to patent the processes by which they developed GM crops. And
the country still has protection for new crop varieties under Plant
Breeders' Rights legislation.

It's also interesting to note that some companies make their new
herbicide-resistance traits widely available, because they make their money
off the sale of that specific herbicide. Herbicides can still be patented,
even if plant genes can't be.

Let's explode another fallacy. No matter the outcome of the Schmeiser case,
there will continue to be many cropping options where the farmer has a
contractual obligation to use purchased pedigreed seed.

In many of these contracts, all of the crop has to be returned, and the
farmer is not allowed to save seed.

These contracts are good for farmers or they wouldn't sign them.
Personally, I've already signed two such contracts for the upcoming growing
season. One is for a GM crop and one is conventional. Both have to be
"identity preserved'' from other production.

This type of contract exists beyond canola. Even for the market development
programs of the Canadian Wheat Board or special contracts, such as spring
wheat grown for Warburton's, the farmer is required to purchase pedigreed
seed.

Cheer for the underdog if you want, but Percy Schmeiser isn't doing
anything to improve the bottom line on my farm.

Kevin Hursh is a Saskatchewan farmer and agricultural commentator.

Badant

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:00 pm

Guest

"Dean Ronn" <dean@home.com> wrote in message news:<101523vm7f2fib2@corp.supernews.com>...

Quote:

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401232145.1e2ab320@posting.google.com...
http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml

"Can you imagine the fear in a farm family when they get a letter from
a multi-billion dollar corportion {Monsanto} asking for many thousands
of dollars so the company might not take them to court?!

Another clause: You're not allowed to show this letter to anyone and
you're not allowed to tell anyone that you've received this letter
from Monsanto or what Monsanto has done to you. So, a total
suppression of farmers rights, freedom of speech and expression.

If they can't find a farmer at home and they don't know his mailing
address, they can go to the local municipality and get the location of
his land. They will then use a small airplane or helicopter and drop a
Monsanto Roundup herbicide spray bomb on the field. It covers about 30
feet in diameter, in the centre of a canola or soybean field.

About 12 days after Roundup has time to activate, they'll fly back. If
the crop, which was hit by the spray, has died they'll know the farmer
has not been using Monsanto's Roundup, but if it hasn't died, God help
the farmer."

Hello

Kevin Hursh's comment is a LETTER TO THE EDITOR.
Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto is a case before the SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA.
The former anyone can do, but you don't get a case to the SUPREME
COURT OF CANADA by putting a stamp on an envelope.

I think Kevin makes his own point very succinctly when he says, in the
last line of his LETTER:

"Percy Schmeiser isn't doing anything to improve the bottom line on my
farm."

Thanks for this, Kevin.

And thanks for this, Dean.

B'adant

Jim Webster

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:12 pm

Guest

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message

Quote:

I think Kevin makes his own point very succinctly when he says, in the
last line of his LETTER:

"Percy Schmeiser isn't doing anything to improve the bottom line on my
farm."

to right

Agriculture is supposed to be an economic activity

We are supposed to make money out of it

Jim Webster

Badant

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:42 pm

Guest

"Dean Ronn" <dean@home.com> wrote in message news:<101523vm7f2fib2@corp.supernews.com>...

Quote:

Hello

Monsanto vs. Schmeiser: A backgrounder
http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=coc_token&step=2&catid=267&iscat=1

The Players
Monsanto: Monsanto, creator of the popular herbicide Roundup, is an
agro-chemical multinational headquartered in St-Louis, Missouri.
Canadian farmers have been using Roundup on their fields because of
its ability to effectively kill all unwanted weeds. Monsanto has also
developed 90% of the genetically engineered crops currently grown
around the world. One of them is the controversial Roundup Ready
canola, a seed completely immune to Roundup. This technology has
allowed farmers to spray the Roundup herbicide over a planted field of
GE canola and kill all of the unwanted weeds without affecting their
canola crops.

Because of Monsanto's intellectual property rights over their Roundup
Ready canola's DNA, farmers have to enter a contract with Monsanto,
obligating them to buy new seeds from the multinational on a yearly
basis. Farmers also have to agree to let Monsanto inspect their fields
and give up the right to make use of the age-old practice of saving
their seeds year to year, relinquishing control of their seed supply
to the biotech giant.

Percy Schmeiser: A former mayor of the town of Bruno, Saskatchewan,
and a former MLA, Percy Schmeiser is a 72 year old farmer who has been
growing canola and developing his own varieties for over 40 years.
Though he never purchased seeds from Monsanto, over 320 hectares of
his land is now contaminated with Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola.

The case made its way to court in August 1998. Monsanto filed suit
against Schmeiser, initially claiming that he illegally obtained their
Roundup Ready canola seeds from one or more of their licensed users to
plant his 1997 crops. Monsanto later withdrew their claims as they
were unable to substantiate them but they pressed on with the charges
that Schmeiser had infringed on their intellectual property rights.

Though the Trial court never established that Schmeiser knowingly
planted Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola, the Bruno farmer was found
guilty of patent infringement. The Trial Court judge concluded that
the mere presence of Roundup Ready canola in Schmeiser's field was
enough to constitute an infringement and awarded the entire crop to
Monsanto. The Federal Court of appeal upheld the Trial Judge's ruling.

Schmeiser subsequently applied for leave before the Supreme Court of
Canada, which was granted to him. A tentative date of January 20, 2004
has been set for his hearing.

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

Key factual findings
Contrary to popular belief, Schmeiser was never found guilty of
intentionally planting Monsanto's canola. Neither the Trial Court, nor
the Court of Appeal found that Schmeiser did anything to cause the
initial presence of the Roundup-resistant plants on his fields. Seed
for the 1998 crop (the only one found to infringe) came from the 1997
crop.

The uncontradicted evidence of Schmeiser is that he did not spray
Roundup on his 1998 canola crop. In order to establish that Schmeiser
benefited from the genetically engineered canola, he would have had to
spray it with Roundup. He did not. The Trial Judge did not say whether
he believed Schmeiser on that point but he concluded that spraying
with Roundup was not relevant in establishing a patent infringement.

Neither the Trial Judge nor the Court of Appeal found that Schmeiser
segregated seed that he knew contained the gene in order to grow a
pure Roundup Ready crop and reap the benefits. Segregating the Roundup
Ready crop from the rest would have been the logical thing to do had
he indeed gone through the trouble of stealing the seed as Monsanto
first alleged.

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

The Implications
The patenting of seeds:
It is our position that Monsanto should not be given the right to
patent a seed because of the following:

Seeds are a lifeform and the intrinsic value of life, in all of its
biological forms and manifestations, precedes its utility and
commercial value, and therefore must be respected and safeguarded by
all political, commercial and social institutions.

Life in all of its biological forms and manifestations, exists in
nature and, therefore, must not be claimed as intellectual property
even if purified and synthesized in the laboratory. It must not be
claimed as intellectual property even if purified and synthesized in
the laboratory.
The implied liability for farmers:
By assigning responsibility to Schmeiser for the contamination of his
field without establishing that he knowingly planted Monsanto's
canola, the lower courts basically infered that farmers ought to be
able to control nature and prevent cross-pollination, wind blown
seeds, and other weather phenomenons.

The right to save seeds:
Given the newly established liabilities with genetic contamination,
farmers will no longer be able to save their seeds for fear of
prosecution. The right to sue has been granted to Monsanto, which they
are now using at their own discretion.

Contamination:
The judgement against Schmeiser has, in effect, cleared Monsanto of
all responsibility for the rampant contamination problems that Western
farmers are experiencing with Roundup Ready Canola. As more and more
international markets are closing their doors to GE canola, it is
imperative that farmers be able to preserve the integrity of their
crop, be it conventional or organic. A significant portion of the
canola grown in Canada is used for export markets. Unless Monsanto is
made accountable for the contamination problem, more and more farmers
will be faced with serious economic repercussions as they won't be
able to sell their crops.

AND:

http://www.commonground.ca/

Some things for YOU to consider, as you prepare your dinner this
evening:
I'd like to explain the main issues of what the Supreme Court will be
addressing. I will concentrate on four or five facts out of many.

1. Can living organisms, seeds, plants, genes and human organs, be
owned and protected by corporate patents on intellectual property?

2. Who is responsible for the genetically modified traits of noxious
weeds that then become resistant to weed killers? We now have these
super weeds.

3. Can farmers' rights to grow conventional or organic crops be
protected?

4. Can farmers keep the ancient right to save their own seed?

5. Who owns life?

Further, will Kevin H, the author of the letter you posted, declare
conflict of interests? Has he ever taken money or gifts, of any kind,
from Monsanto, or any producer of pesticides, herbicides, or other
agri-pharmaceuticals? Or accepted gratuities of any kind from
Monsanto, or it's subsidiaries, both profit and non-profit or from any
other producer of agi-chemicals?

B'adant

Badant

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:06 pm

Guest

"Dean Ronn" <dean@home.com> wrote in message news:<101523vm7f2fib2@corp.supernews.com>...

Quote:

For more information please go to:

http://www.canadians.org

http://www.commonground.ca

And:

http://www.producer.com/articles/20040122/news/20040122news03.html

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2004/0126/farmer012604.shtml

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61990,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_2

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/01/21/build/world/65-biotechrift.inc

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7753891.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040112003902197

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/world/article/0,1406,KNS_351_2590476,00.html

http://www.just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=56486

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/7754989.htm

http://www.canada.com/regina/news/story.asp?id=B01931DC-1863-40A6-8C01-EA70F33FC8BA

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2004/01/23/news/opinion/opinion2.txt

http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/info/business/story.html?id=A8B8F94B-7B8B-4FD3-8F62-C8495F06C196

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-01-19-schmeiser_x.htm

http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/8127820p-9059857c.html

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/jan/18/yehey/opinion/20040118opi6.html

http://sask.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=schmeiser040119

B'adant

Badant

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:40 pm

Guest

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message news:<buug0c$dld$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...

Quote:

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
I think Kevin makes his own point very succinctly when he says, in the
last line of his LETTER:

"Percy Schmeiser isn't doing anything to improve the bottom line on my
farm."

to right

Agriculture is supposed to be an economic activity

We are supposed to make money out of it

Jim Webster

"We are supposed to make money out of it"

MONSANTO is certainly doing that. Because Percy and some other farmers
don't want to grow HERBICIDE laced canola, but prefer their own saved
seed, does that give a MULTIBILLION dollar corporation the right to
move int, take their crip and put a lien on a three-generation farm.

Are you going to sit on your hands until they move in to take your
farm?

"We are supposed to make money out of it"
And are you supposed to close your eyes to the damage you do the
environment and suceeding generations while you do it?

If you have a farm, do you eat the produce that you produce feeding
the animals back to themselves, and the grain that you poison with
herbicides? Or do you carefully separate yours from what you sell?

Look your children in the face.

B'adant

Jim Webster

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:57 am

Guest

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401241640.7036a33c@posting.google.com...

Quote:

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<buug0c$dld$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
I think Kevin makes his own point very succinctly when he says, in the
last line of his LETTER:

"Percy Schmeiser isn't doing anything to improve the bottom line on my
farm."

to right

Agriculture is supposed to be an economic activity

We are supposed to make money out of it

Jim Webster

"We are supposed to make money out of it"

MONSANTO is certainly doing that. Because Percy and some other farmers
don't want to grow HERBICIDE laced canola, but prefer their own saved
seed, does that give a MULTIBILLION dollar corporation the right to
move int, take their crip and put a lien on a three-generation farm.

Are you going to sit on your hands until they move in to take your
farm?

and how come he had 90% RR OSR growing?

Jim Webster

Boris Seiter

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:02 am

Guest

Hello,

in Germany (and other EU countries where gen-manipulated crops are not
wanted by the population and the governments) companies like monsanto try to
get access to small testing fields (for mais mainly) these fields (1 to 10
ha mainly) are often in the wind direction form other mais planters. When
now the wind spreads the manipulated mais into other fields, any resistance
against gen-manipulation will be useless because everything will be poluted.

Therefor many people decided to destroy these fields before the mais
spreads.

Good way to do!

For us as for the majority of people in Europe, gen-food is a danger for us
and our children.

Quote:

"Can you imagine the fear in a farm family when they get a letter from
a multi-billion dollar corportion {Monsanto} asking for many thousands
of dollars so the company might not take them to court?!

Dean Ronn

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:03 am

Guest

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401241106.42bb2a34@posting.google.com...

Quote:

"Dean Ronn" <dean@home.com> wrote in message
news:<101523vm7f2fib2@corp.supernews.com>...
"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401232145.1e2ab320@posting.google.com...
http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml

"Can you imagine the fear in a farm family when they get a letter from
a multi-billion dollar corportion {Monsanto} asking for many thousands
of dollars so the company might not take them to court?!

Another clause: You're not allowed to show this letter to anyone and
you're not allowed to tell anyone that you've received this letter
from Monsanto or what Monsanto has done to you. So, a total
suppression of farmers rights, freedom of speech and expression.

If they can't find a farmer at home and they don't know his mailing
address, they can go to the local municipality and get the location of
his land. They will then use a small airplane or helicopter and drop a
Monsanto Roundup herbicide spray bomb on the field. It covers about 30
feet in diameter, in the centre of a canola or soybean field.

About 12 days after Roundup has time to activate, they'll fly back. If
the crop, which was hit by the spray, has died they'll know the farmer
has not been using Monsanto's Roundup, but if it hasn't died, God help
the farmer."

For more information please go to:

http://www.canadians.org

http://www.commonground.ca

And:

http://www.producer.com/articles/20040122/news/20040122news03.html

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2004/0126/farmer012604.shtml

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61990,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_2

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/01/21/build/world/65-biotechrift.inc

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7753891.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040112003902197

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/world/article/0,1406,KNS_351_2590476,00.html

http://www.just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=56486

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/7754989.htm

http://www.canada.com/regina/news/story.asp?id=B01931DC-1863-40A6-8C01-EA70F33FC8BA

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2004/01/23/news/opinion/opinion2.txt

http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/info/business/story.html?id=A8B8F94B-7B8B-4FD3-8F62-C8495F06C196

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-01-19-schmeiser_x.htm

http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/8127820p-9059857c.html

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/jan/18/yehey/opinion/20040118opi6.html

http://sask.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=schmeiser040119

B'adant

An infamous Canadian's traveling sideshow is visiting Down Under this
week as part of an on-going personal quest to become a martyr for the poor
farmers of the world who are pushed around by multinationals.

Percy Schmeiser is coming to town.

The story behind the Bruno, Saskatchewan, Canada, farmer is that
Monsanto dragged him into court after it was suspected that he had been
growing a genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready variety of canola and
had not been paying the licensing fees that thousands of other Canadian
farmers had willingly paid. A Canadian federal court ruled in 2001 that he
had indeed infringed Monsanto's patent.

Schmeiser has stood by his defense that the GE canola was blown into
his field by passing seed trucks and then they cross pollinated his crop,
resulting in the detectable traits; at least until the appeal when he took a
new tack, declaring recently that he had indeed deliberately planted the
Roundup Ready canola, but that as a farmer, it was his right to brown bag
seed or purchase it from a neighbour.

In his original decision, Justice Andrew MacKay ruled that Mr.
Schmeiser "knew or ought to have known" that he had saved and planted seed
that was Roundup tolerant and had therefore infringed Monsanto¹s Roundup
Ready patented technology.

Justice MacKay pointed to independent tests that showed 1,030 acres of
Mr. Schmeiser¹s canola were 95 per cent to 98 per cent tolerant to Roundup
herbicide. At such a high level of tolerance, Justice MacKay ruled the seed
could only be of commercial quality and could not have arrived in Mr.
Schmeiser¹s field by accident.

But like the Greens and the New Zealand Royal Commission, if one
doesn't like the results of a judicial decision, go to the court of public
opinion which has a much lower standard for admissibility of evidence; in
short, anything goes.

Percy has been on a public relations whilrwind since the lawsuit was
filed against him in 2000, traveling to Africa, India, Australia, New
Zealand all in the name of fighting the biotech companies that are allegedly
keeping Percy, as well as the farmers of the world down.

Except that this year, some 70 per cent of canola grown in Canada is
expected to be derived from GE varieties.

In 2000, Canadian growers of genetically engineered canola reported an
average $5.80/acre increase in net return on their transgenic acres compared
to conventional acres, largely due to reduced herbicide costs and diesel
fuel savings of some 31.2 million litres because of reduced trips up and
down the fields to control weeds.

Overall, the use of genetically engineered crops in North America
continues to increase. While estimates for this year remain preliminary, it
is expected that some 70 per cent of canola, 35 per cent of corn and 30 per
cent of soybeans grown in Canada will be from genetically engineered
varieties this year. In the U.S., about 75 per cent of soybeans, 70 per cent
of cotton and 30 per cent of filed corn will be GE.

Part of the reason is a 46 million pound reduction in pesticide use in
the U.S. in 2001 because of genetically engineered crops such as cotton,
canola, soy and field corn. Such crops helped American farmers reap an
additional 14 billion pounds of food and improve farm income by $2.5
billion.

The most recent study from the Washington-based National Center for
Food and Agricultural also predicted that if the 32 other biotech crop
varieties still under development were planted, they would reduce pesticide
use by 117 million pounds per year, bringing total pesticide reduction for
all biotech crops to 163 million pounds annually. Field corn resistant to
rootworm, for example, could replace 14 million pounds of insecticides used
on this crop each year (the complete report, commissioned with a grant from
The Rockefeller Foundation, and later expanded with industry funding, was
reviewed by nearly 70 plant biotechnology scientists from 20 academic and
government institutions and is available at www.ncfap.org).

In short, certain genetically engineered crops, on certain farms, can
help farmers produce safe, affordable food while minimizing the
environmental impact. But that isn't what Percy Schmeiser or the anti-GE
campaign will have you believe.

Stompin' Tom Connors, a Canadian music icon (not unlike Aussie Kylie
Minogue or the Kiwi pair, the Finn brothers), sang a song that if it weren't
for copyright laws would probably become Mr. Schmeiser's theme. A line of
the lyrics reads: I'm a poor, poor farmer, what am I going to do?

Schmeiser is preaching a tale of corporate omnipotence, but only after
getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. His rants against corporate
rule has nothing to do with the safety of genetically engineered foods. It
appears that good old Percy, practical as are most farmers, wanted to use a
product that worked but didn't want to pay for the technology. When he
arrives he'll be telling everyone who wants to listen that the Monsanto's of
the world has pushed him around, and that every other farmer is in the same
situation as he is. He is still talking about this in Canada as well; but
here, few are listening anymore.

Benjamin Chapman is a graduate student with the Food Safety Network at
the University of Guelph in Canada

Source: By Benjamin Chapman, Commentary from the Food Safety Network,
1 July 2002

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:51 am

Guest

Badant <badant@despammed.com> writes

Quote:

MONSANTO is certainly doing that. Because Percy and some other farmers
don't want to grow HERBICIDE laced canola, but prefer their own saved
seed, does that give a MULTIBILLION dollar corporation the right to
move int, take their crip and put a lien on a three-generation farm.

Are you going to sit on your hands until they move in to take your
farm?

Remember jim is from the UK.

here there is copyright of varieties and a charge is levied for home
saved seed.

Its not a big deal and helps pay for new varieties PROVIDING it us kept
at reasonable levels.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:52 am

Guest

Boris Seiter <info@seiter-import-export.de> writes

Quote:

in Germany (and other EU countries where gen-manipulated crops are not
wanted by the population and the governments) companies like monsanto try to
get access to small testing fields (for mais mainly) these fields (1 to 10
ha mainly) are often in the wind direction form other mais planters. When
now the wind spreads the manipulated mais into other fields, any resistance
against gen-manipulation will be useless because everything will be poluted.

Therefor many people decided to destroy these fields before the mais
spreads.

Which shows their stupidity.

Nobody grows farm saved seed in europe as it is 100% hybrid.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Boris Seiter

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:11 pm

Guest

Quote:

Which shows their stupidity.

Why? because we don't want to eat gen-food?

Quote:

Nobody grows farm saved seed in europe as it is 100% hybrid.

That is not the question in this case, right?! Furthermore do we have a
number of seed producers in Europe, what do you think where they produce? in
the USA?

Quote:

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Jim Webster

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:19 pm

Guest

"Boris Seiter" <info@seiter-import-export.de> wrote in message
news:bv10nb$bi5$03$1@news.t-online.com...

Quote:

Which shows their stupidity.

Why? because we don't want to eat gen-food?

Nobody grows farm saved seed in europe as it is 100% hybrid.

That is not the question in this case, right?! Furthermore do we have a
number of seed producers in Europe, what do you think where they produce?
in
the USA?

check the details of hybrid seeds

Jim Webster

Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:18 pm

On 24 Jan 2004 10:00:58 -0800, badant@despammed.com (Badant) wrote:

Quote:

"Percy Schmeiser isn't doing anything to improve the bottom line on my
farm."

And neither is Monsanto...! Smile

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:02 am Science Forum Index