Monsanto sues more small family farmers
By Jet Hermida on Jun 18, 2009 in Agriculture and Globalization, Food Security, FrankenTech, News Clippings
FrankenThursday brings this anger-inducing news that Monsanto is suing yet another North American farmer for having his own field contaminated with FrankenCanola from another field through no fault of his own. That is just so wow! right? Let this serve as a reminder to Asian farmers to never ever plant any FrankenSeeds nor be near a FrankenFarm. 
Help end Monsanto’s evil FrankenFood Plan! read more about it at the Millions Against Monsanto Campaign
Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada, whose Canola fields were contaminated
with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn’t matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto’s genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, “I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract.
If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots – destroy what they have worked on for 40 years – I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away.”
Read more about Percy’s fight agains the the evil Monsanto….
Sue Monsanto for Tresspassing.
If Monsanto genetically-engineered products invade your property, sue Monsanto for tresspassing.
Monsanto can sue for patent violations when some aspect of Monsanto genetically-engineered products invade a farmer’s property–which is absurd. This is like someone leaving their property on your land, then suing you for theft.
In the case of Monsanto genetically-modified plants, the uninvited appearance of these plants in a farmer’s field should be grounds for that farmer to sue Monsanto for tresspassing.
The risk of release of genetically-modified plants outside the designated planting areas was one of the elements of public opposition to the commercial introduction of these plants. Monsanto argued that the risk of unintended and uncontrolled propagation was low. Now Monsanto is using instances of unintended progagation as opportunities to coerce royalty payments from farmers who never did and never wanted to use Monsanto GSM seeds.
Monsanto should be investigated for deliberately contaminating the lands of innocent farmers with Monsanto GSM products. This may be a business practice of Monsanto, as a way of expanding the market share of Monsanto products and royalty fees.
Paul H. Johnson | Apr 14, 2010 | Reply