Recently we were asked to respond to five questions put to us by a college student working on a project on GE food. Find my answers in Bold. Jim.

1. Why take such measures as filing a lawsuit against Monsanto when they have stated on their website that "it has never been, nor will be, Monsanto's policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means" ?

Farmers are at risk. The record shows we are wise to not believe Monsanto. Only a fool would imagine that an anonymous statement on a company website has a grain of legal validity. Monsanto's so called "Commitment to Farmers," posted on their website is replete with vague and undefined legal phrases such as "trace amounts" and "inadvertent means." Even if this statement honestly represented the Monsanto policy today, what would prevent Monsanto from changing their policy tomorrow? The fact is our attorneys asked Monsanto for a binding legal covenant that they would not sue our farmers should they become contaminated. Monsanto refused. That says something.

http://www.woodprairie.com/wpf_news-pressrelease2

Additionally, Monsanto has pursued farmers who have wanted nothing to do with their technology. here are three examples.

a. Stephen Webster. ONT.

b. David Runyon. IN.

c. The Nelson Family. ND.

2. Have any of the plaintiffs in the suit ever been directly acted upon by Monsanto?

This is a preemptive Declatory Judgment Act lawsuit (see above) and we are seeking prophylactic Court protection. Additionally, since we have a very large Plaintiff group we do not know the individual experiences of all 500,000 individuals in our Plaintiff group.

3. Monsanto claims that their 145 suits against farmers in the United States is an insignificant number compared to the two million farmers in the country. What is your opinion on this?

Tell that to those 145 farmers. Our federal lawsuit is a preemptive action and seeks a Declatory Judgment by the Court to protect family farmers under the provisions of the Declatory Judgment Act. The DJA was enacted by Congress about 30  years ago to allow groups or businesses to receive a Court judgment as to whether they would be liable for patent infringement prior to committing acts which might otherwise place them at legal jeopardy. We have farmers in our Plaintiff group, who fearful of being accused of patent infringement have given up growing organic canola, organic corn and organic soybeans. They have suffered significant economic harm already. 

Click Here to Read The Brief

Monsanto misrepresents reality when they refer repetitively to only the cases which have gone to court. They ignore another 600+ cases which were settled out-of-court and documented by Plaintiff Center for Food Safety.

Click Here to Read The Report

Additionally, an unknown number of threatening accusatory letters, thought to be in the thousands or tens of thousands, have been sent by Monsanto to farmers questioning their behavior and alleged mis-use of Monsanto technology. In fact, the number of farmers pursued by Monsanto was considered a significant percentage according to one of three Justices in the January 2013 Court of Appeals Oral Argument. 

Click Here to Read The Transcript of Our Jan 2013 Oral Argument

4. How would the lives of farmers change for the better if OSGATA won this case so that they would not have to worry about being targeted by Monsanto?

Once our family farmers receive the Court protection we seek, we will gain full use of our property and will be able to grow on our farms the crops we choose without the fear of losing our farms and livelihoods in trying to fight off one of the world's most notorious patent bullies. All of our Plaintiffs have this in common: we are not customers of Monsanto. We have not signed licensing agreements with Monsanto because we do not want their technology. We therefore deserve protection from any false claims of infringing on their patent rights.

5. Monsanto states on its website that "detectable presence of GMO material in crop does not constitute a violation of NOP standards and regulations, as long as a grower has not intentionally planted GMO seed and has taken reasonable steps to avoid contact with GMO pollen or seed or both". What is the opinion of farmers in the OSGATA regarding this policy and the possibility of misleading customers regarding the quality of their crops?

We have been certified organic for 31 years. USDA NOP began their regulation of the organic industry eleven years ago, in October 2002. Many farmers, myself included believe the NOP interpretation on GE content is incorrect in that it ignores the historical and current expectation of the organic market. The fact is the organic market equates organic food and seed with freedom from GE content. It is only at an industry's peril that it ignores the expectations of its customers. The members of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the national trade organization of the Untied States organic seed community respects the expectation of the market and some years ago adopted the following policy.

OSGATA Policy on Genetically Engineered (GE) Seed Contamination of organic seed by genetically engineered (GE) seed - commonly referred to as GMOs - constitutes irreparable harm to the organic seed industry and undermines the integrity of organic seed. Any detectable level is unacceptable. 

http://www.osgata.org/policy/