"X-No archive: Yes"

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.
...
The uncontradicted evidence of Schmeiser is that he did not spray
Roundup on his 1998 canola crop.
...
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.



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

Your cited source in your last posting writes OPINION. What I have
posted above is FACT. Furthermore--who does the author of the article
you posted now work for? Does Monsanto give money to his department at
the University of Guelph? Has he ever taken money or gifts in kind,
for tuition, books, trips, speakers fees or the like, from Monsanto or
any other agichemical producer, their subsidiaries, or been paid to do
radio programs or articles by Monsanto, or delivered the same written
by Monsanto? Has he ever attended seminars or workshops put on by
Monsanto or any other agichemical producer?

The idea that this is a bunch of bleeding hearts supporting a 'poor
farmer' is laughable. This is Canadians keeping our farm land, from
any kind of GMO, and using the courts to do it. This is a
sophisticated man, not some bumbler trying to steal a few seeds. Percy
Schmeiser was an MLA of the province he lives in, voted in by the
farmers he still now represents in a different way.

You can always find some pathetic shill who is paid to do supportive
comments on private radio or in print media by a corporate identity
like Monsanto.

We have a name for people who take money for their loyalties: it
rhymes with bore.

B'adant

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401251134.248a9a0d@posting.google.com...
"X-No archive: Yes"

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.
...
The uncontradicted evidence of Schmeiser is that he did not spray
Roundup on his 1998 canola crop.
...
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.



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

Your cited source in your last posting writes OPINION. What I have
posted above is FACT. Furthermore--who does the author of the article
you posted now work for? Does Monsanto give money to his department at
the University of Guelph? Has he ever taken money or gifts in kind,
for tuition, books, trips, speakers fees or the like, from Monsanto or
any other agichemical producer, their subsidiaries, or been paid to do
radio programs or articles by Monsanto, or delivered the same written
by Monsanto? Has he ever attended seminars or workshops put on by
Monsanto or any other agichemical producer?

The idea that this is a bunch of bleeding hearts supporting a 'poor
farmer' is laughable. This is Canadians keeping our farm land, from
any kind of GMO, and using the courts to do it. This is a
sophisticated man, not some bumbler trying to steal a few seeds. Percy
Schmeiser was an MLA of the province he lives in, voted in by the
farmers he still now represents in a different way.

You can always find some pathetic shill who is paid to do supportive
comments on private radio or in print media by a corporate identity
like Monsanto.

We have a name for people who take money for their loyalties: it
rhymes with bore.

B'adant


http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html

Paragraph 33 tells quite a story. There is your FACT!!!

"Badant" <badant@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a65177d7.0401251134.248a9a0d@posting.google.com...
"X-No archive: Yes"

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.
...
The uncontradicted evidence of Schmeiser is that he did not spray
Roundup on his 1998 canola crop.
...
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.



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

Your cited source in your last posting writes OPINION. What I have
posted above is FACT. Furthermore--who does the author of the article
you posted now work for? Does Monsanto give money to his department at
the University of Guelph? Has he ever taken money or gifts in kind,
for tuition, books, trips, speakers fees or the like, from Monsanto or
any other agichemical producer, their subsidiaries, or been paid to do
radio programs or articles by Monsanto, or delivered the same written
by Monsanto? Has he ever attended seminars or workshops put on by
Monsanto or any other agichemical producer?

The idea that this is a bunch of bleeding hearts supporting a 'poor
farmer' is laughable. This is Canadians keeping our farm land, from
any kind of GMO, and using the courts to do it. This is a
sophisticated man, not some bumbler trying to steal a few seeds. Percy
Schmeiser was an MLA of the province he lives in, voted in by the
farmers he still now represents in a different way.

You can always find some pathetic shill who is paid to do supportive
comments on private radio or in print media by a corporate identity
like Monsanto.

We have a name for people who take money for their loyalties: it
rhymes with bore.

B'adant


http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html

Paragraph 33 tells quite a story. There is your FACT!!!

The point of law turns on who owns life. And whether or not a farmer
has the right to save his seed and plant it year after year. There is
also concern about the dramtic amount of pesticide having to be used
since Monsanto and other agichemical producers GMO's have come in.

On 1/25/04 9:00 PM, in article
a65177d7.0401251900.3e95a014@posting.google.com, "Badant"
badant@despammed.com> wrote:

Some cut.

The point of law turns on who owns life. And whether or not a farmer
has the right to save his seed and plant it year after year. There is
also concern about the dramtic amount of pesticide having to be used
since Monsanto and other agichemical producers GMO's have come in.

More cut.

Could you explain how GE crops increase pesticide use? Canola must be a
lot different than corn in that regard.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 1/25/04 9:00 PM, in article
a65177d7.0401251900.3e95a014@posting.google.com, "Badant"
badant@despammed.com> wrote:

Some cut.

The point of law turns on who owns life. And whether or not a farmer
has the right to save his seed and plant it year after year. There is
also concern about the dramtic amount of pesticide having to be used
since Monsanto and other agichemical producers GMO's have come in.

More cut.

Could you explain how GE crops increase pesticide use? Canola must be a
lot different than corn in that regard.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Could you explain how GE crops increase pesticide use? Canola must be a
lot different than corn in that regard.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:24:15 -0600, Dean Hoffman
dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote:

Could you explain how GE crops increase pesticide use? Canola must be a
lot different than corn in that regard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1118170,00.html

GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use
John Vidal
Thursday January 8, 2004
The Guardian

Eight years of planting genetically modified maize, cotton and soya
beans in the USA has significantly increased the amount of herbicides
and pesticides used, according to a US report which could influence
the British government over whether to let GM crops be grown.

The most comprehensive study yet made of chemical use on genetically
modified crops draws on US government data collected since
commercialisation of the crops began.

It appears to undermine one of the central selling points of GM
farming - that the crops benefit the environment because they need
fewer manmade agrochemicals.

Charles Benbrook, the author of the report, who is also head of the
Northwest Science and Environment Policy Centre, at Sandpoint, Idaho,
found that when first introduced most of the crops needed up to 25%
fewer chemicals for the first three years, but afterwards
significantly more.

In 2001, the report states, 5% more herbicides and insecticides were
sprayed compared with crops only of non-GM varieties; in 2002 7.9%
more was sprayed; and in 2003 the estimated rise was 11.5%. In total,
£73m more agrochemicals were sprayed in the US during 2001-2003
because of GM crops, says the report, which was commissioned by Iowa
State University, the Consumers' Union and others.

During 2002-2003, an average of 29% more herbicide was applied per
acre on GM maize. But this trend was not sustained over the eight
years. Overall, modest reductions in insecticide usage with maize and
cotton were recorded, with no sign thatthe pests were starting to
build up resistance.

UK farm trials found that two of the three GM crops grown
experimentally in Britain, oil seed rape and sugar beet, were more
harmful to the environment than conventional crops but that GM maize
allowed the survival of more weeds and insects. The key to insects'
and weeds' survival was the quantity of chemicals used on either
conventional or GM crops.

Dr Benbrook said: "The proponents of biotechnology claim GM varieties
substantially reduce pesticide use. While true in the first few years
of widespread planting ... it is not the case now. There's now clear
evidence that the average pounds of herbicides applied per acre
planted to herbicide-tolerant varieties have increased compared to the
first few years."

Last night, the Agriculture Biotechnology Council, a British GM
industry trade group, criticised the findings, saying it was not
possible to directly correlate pesticide use with GM crops. "There are
lots of seasonal conditions that have effects [on how much pesticide
is used]. Global warming is also important. We do not dispute that
there was a 20% increase [of pesticides] in 2002 over 2001, but that
[2001] was the lowest figure in years."

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said
yesterday: "This is compelling evidence that GM maize will lead to
higher spray use and serious damage to wildlife if the crop is grown
in this country.

"The biotechnology companies have been claiming that GM crops result
in large reductions in the use of sprays, and GM maize is their
frontrunner for commercial growing in the UK. Until now, there has
been no clear evidence over the whole eight years of commercial
growing in the US to show their claims are false - that's what the
evidence in this report gives us.

"It would be inconceivable for the government to give the go-ahead to
GM maize now this damning evidence is out."

However, one of the most important factors involved in the increase
of herbicides is thought to have been the recent termination of the
patent protection for glyphosate herbicide, made by the leading GM
company Monsanto. This is the main chemical the plants are engineered
to tolerate.

According to the report, new, competing products have halved prices
and encouraged more spraying.

· Tony Blair yesterday said that public opinion would play a part in
the development of GM products in the UK. Speaking at prime minister's
question time about what impact recent government soundings would have
on a final decision on GM in Britain, he said it was "vital that we
proceed - by public consultation but also on the basis of the science
of GM".

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:24:15 -0600, Dean Hoffman
dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote:

Could you explain how GE crops increase pesticide use? Canola must be a
lot different than corn in that regard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1118170,00.html

---------snip------for brevity-----