Schmeiser - Monsanto in Nederland

I have being following Monsanto's activity - from a curiosity aspect - since the Vietnam war (from the time of "agent orange").
It seems to me that Monsanto and Mr Schmeiser deserve each other....
It is more than obvious that GMO's are succeeding in poisoning the planet and reducing the population in the long run while getting rich....
Thank you for being able to share my opinion with you.
R. S. M.

Het is en blijft belachelijk dat je octrooi kan aanvragen op plantmateriaal. En het vervolgens in het wild uit mag strooien en dan kan zeggen dat elke andere plant die je ermee bestuift jouw eigendom wordt.
Laat de Firma Monsanto maar eens betalen voor het ongevraagd bestuiven van buurmans planten.

Maar goed. Je moet bij de basis beginnen. Octrooi op zowel plant-, dierlijk- als mens-materiaal, zoals DNA of noem maar op. Moet ten ene malen worden verboden. Dan is er meteen geen geld meer aan te verdienen en zullen Monsanto en consorten misschien hun gewin ergens anders halen en de natuur met rust laten zodat ik met een gerust hart mijn groente kan eten zonder me elke keer weer te moeten afvragen of het wel verantwoord is verbouwd.

een Argeloze en verontruste Consument

Hierboven vertelt Schmeiser dat hij 5 a 10 kilo koolzaad van roundup resistente planten heeft geoogst. Waarom vertelde Schmeiser in zijn voordrachten niets over het bewust oogsten en als zaaizaad gebruiken van dit koolzaad?

Nog steeds wordt informatie achtergehouden. Een boer die zijn eigen zaaizaad vermeerdert, die maakt gebruik van de diensten van derden. Humbold Company is een seed cleaner. Met speciale apparaten worden kafjes, gronddeeltjes, onkruidzaden en andere onzuiverheden uitgezeefd. Het zaad kan ook nog met pesiticiden behandeld worden en is daarna opgewerkt tot zaaizaad. Humbold Company heeft ook monsters genomen. Bemonstering is een normale zaak omdat je daarmee controverses kunt ophelderen als een boer vind dat hij goed spul bracht, maar rommel terugkreeg.
Het monster van Humbold is onvermeld gebleven door Biologica en Schmeiser. Het verslag is te lezen op:
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=...

Monsanto v. Schmeiser

- Drew L Kershen - dkershen.at.ou.edu- Earl Sneed Centennail Professor of Law, University of Oklahom College of Law

As reported in AgBioView (Feb. 14, 2006 edition), Percy Schmeiser has released a video about Monsanto suing him for patent infringement. Schmeiser, of course, claims to be telling the truth.

In response, AgBioView printed Rick Roush's analysis of Schmeiser's claims. Rick does an excellent review of the inaccuracies in Schmeiser's claims. Congratulations to Rick.

I would like to add one additional point about Monsanto v. Schmeiser. I do not know whether Schmeiser's video attacks the tests and samples showing 95-98% Round-up Ready canola on his 1000+ acres. Schmeiser has done so in speeches. Many of his supporters have similarly claimed that the tests and the samples were bogus.

However, Alan McHughen and I, both independently but almost simultaneously, clearly saw several months ago that the opinion by the Canadian trail court answers the claim by Schmeiser that the tests and samples were bogus. As I do not have access to the opinion from where I am typing this e-mail, I cannot cite the precise paragraphs of the Federal Court Trial opinion. But if anyone wants to find those paragraphs, simply search the document for the words "test" or "sample" and you will quickly and easily find the paragraphs to which I am referred.

In the opinion, the uncontradicted testimony went as follows:
1. Schmeiser took his "saved seed" (the specially selected seed that Rick highlights) to have it cleaned by the Humbolt Company.
2. Unbeknownst to Schmeiser, Humbolt Co. saved a sample of Schmeiser's seed. [The opinion does not say why Humbolt Co saved a sample but those familiar with clearning seed know that companies save seed to protect themselves if a farmer later complains that the Company kept his good seed and returned poor quality seed.]
3. At trial, the litigants learned of the Humbolt saved seed and both sides demanded that it be tested because neither side trusted the other's sides sampling or testing.
4. The court order Humbolt to divide its sample into three portions -- one portion sent directly to Schmeiser for his testing; one portion sent directly to an independent court appointed expert; one portion sent directly to Monsanto Canada for its testing.
a. Schmeiser divided his portion into two portions -- one for his own testing; the second Schmeiser portion, Schmeiser sent to the same independent court appointed expert.

5. Results of the tests:
a. Schmeiser's test showed 60-65% RR canola on the portion he kept for his own testing that Humbolt had sent directly to him.
b. Monsanto Canada's test showed 95-98% RR canola on the portion sent directly to it.
c. The independent court appointed expert found the following:
i) On the portion Humbolt sent to him directly, 95-98% RR canola. The same result as that obtained by Monsanto Canada.
ii) On the portion received from Schmeiser, 60-65 RR canola. The same result as Schmeiser got on his test.
--
End of testimony.
------
If you were the judge, what conclusion would you draw from the above testimony? Let me state the conclusions I would draw.

I would conclude:
1) that Humbolt had no interest in the case and sent three samples of idential, fungible grain to Schmeiser, Monsanto, and the independent expert. In other words, Humbolt did not tamper with the evidence;
2) that on the tests sent directly to the independent expert 95-98% was RR canola;
3) that on the test of the Schmeiser portion that Schmeiser sent to the independent expert 60-65% RR canola; Monsanto could not have tampered with this portion becasue its chain of custody went from Humbolt to Schmeiser, then Schmeiser to the independent expert.
4) as the independent expert on the directly received portion from Humbolt found the same level of RR canola as the Monsanto Canada test (i.e. 95-98%), but only 60-65% on the portion received from Schmeiser, Schmeiser apparently tampered with the evidence;
5) leaving aside the fact that 60-65% RR canola is still too high (as a matter of plant biology) to support Schmeiser's claims of canola seed carried by wind or falling off passing trucks loaded with RR canola, etc., the fact that the independent expert on the portion received directly from Humbolt found 95-98% RR canola means that the weight of the evidence clearly is with a 95-98% level of RR canola.

The court did not find that Schmeiser had tampered because there was no direct evidence of his tampering with the sample received from Humbolt. But the court could clearly conclude, on the undisputed evidence, that the 95-98% level of RR canola was the preponderance of the believable evidence. In fact, the court did so determine as a matter of fact -- the level of RR canola on Schmeiser's 1000+ acreas was 95-98% RR canola. Schmeiser was not an "innocent" farmer.

When these paragraphs about the testing and samples are read together with the other paragraphs in the court's opinion (some of which Rick Roush cited in his excellent response to the Schmeiser video), Schmeiser (reincarnated today on the lecture circuit as an anti-transgenic naif) is actually seen as a farmer desparately wanting RR canola who purposefully selected RR canola for his field. He only became an antagonist after he got caught. He is actually the opposite of a naif -- he was a farmer so anxious to have access to the new technology that hewas even willing to "steal" it.