HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0271.001 2012-2014Murashi e, Laura COUNTY CLERK
!!I- HAVVAII
From: Unmani Cynthia Groves [unmanib @maui.net]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:33 AM 2013 MAY 13 AN 0 59
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: From Unmani Cynthia Groves Ordinance 79 Testimony
Attachments: Testimony Ordinance 79 Ad doc
e�
Testimony Ordinanc
e 79 Ad.doc ...
I provided 15 booklets on Monsanto vs Farmers to the Ordinance 79 to this testimony if it
arrived.
Otherwise, appreciate so much your printed this document.
-''all me if questions
-14 -9324
,1 -4212
1 l jha 10 Nui Loa
r,r.ni Cynthia Groves
inrr<<.n ib @maui , net
1
Comm. No-27/-I
Ref. To: Plje5H
Ref. Date MAY 14 Z013
Testimony Ordinance 79 Addition RE: GMO Prohibitions
Scheduled for May 14, 2013 9:00 a.m.
Public Safety and Mass Transit Committee
Council Chambers
Aloha Honorable Chair and Council members,
I am a health care practice management consultant to professionals and active member of the
Alliance of Maui Community Association, Kihei Community Association Planning Committee,
SW Maui Watershed Advisory and Halau Ke'alaokamaile who has done considerable networking
with groups on Kauai and Maui particularly on pesticide and GMO related issues and been in
support of two parties on the Big Island who are active regarding this Ordinance and petitions.in
support of this Ordinance aAND Bill of Rights.
I support the Ordinance 79 addition as well as putting in a Bill of Rights for the protection
of Residents and Rights of Nature now while you can -- particularly to protect the Big Island
from the experimental GE crops abuse such has occurred particularly in West Kauai. I support
either a moratorium or prohibition on further GMO crop open air experimentation, a requirement
to contain experimental crops, or creating GE Free zones -- unless you choose as the ordinance
suggests, to ban GMO crops outright on the Big Island. Certainly there is a Pandoras Box in
Hawaii Nei. I don't envy your position or choice.
"Chemically grown crops and foods produced locally may be cheaper than organic and may aid
the local economy, but they pollute the ground water, kill the soil food web, decrease the soil's
ability to sequester climate - destabilizing greenhouse gases, broadcast pesticides into the air, can
poison farmworkers, and incrementally poison consumers with toxic residues on their foods.
"Local" pesticides, GMOs, and chemical fertilizers are just as poisonous as those used in
California, Mexico, Chile, or China."
http: wANw.11aturalne\ \scorn /031511) local i(wd organic 1`arming.htmlt +ixrr2I:1Nc.19m3
While this is strong language, there are a number of further complicating factors with GMO
crops: The benefit is primarily to the convenience of the GMO grower and producer of the crops
and potential in dire circumstances such as the ring spot virus —to prevent a crop from being
wiped out. It is unclear whether the crop under healthy organic practice conditions would have
survived the virus. There is no redeeming benefit to the consumer. It is hotly debated whether
crops yields increase or decrease, and pesticide toxicity application appears to be getting more
virulent in regard to handling superweeds, which may put consumers at greater risks of toxic
burden when eating conventional or GMO foods.
Concerns: IM Y, /�Nw�i. mo -rrrn� .�assor } cE��itia.tet� icn� ironmc�iurl elfct�,
1. The effects of monocropping on Biodiversity without liability constraints such as with the
international Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagasoya -Kuala Lumpar Liability
Protocol signed by 150 countries, but not the US.
2. Effects on insects, spiders and other animals such as bee
collapse http: / /en.wikipedia.org /wild /Colony_collapse_disorder
3 . Outcrossing: The spread of novel genes with unknown and unintended effects
4. Containment for foreign genes which cannot be recalled once released; and can change the
nature and character of organisms.
5. Crop specific information
6. Gene transfer to microorganisms which can turn promoters genes on or off at random in
networks subject to unknown and unintended effects. Gene VI Discovery in GMO Crops shows
there exists autoimmune responses from such, including attacking the host.
htt�: -'www .collective- evolution.com %2x)1 x;05!08 /hidden- viral -gene- discovered- in- gmo- cronsi
7. "Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US —the first sixteen years.
"Herbicide- resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in
herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide
applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an
estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7 %. Contrary to often - repeated claims that
today's genetically- engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate -
resistant weeds in herbicide - resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases
in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and
soybeans tolerant of 2,4 -D are approved, the volume of 2,4 -D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward
by another approximate 50 %. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide - resistant hectares
has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do
so for the foreseeable future.
Public Health Concerns: Heightened risk of public health impacts can be expected in the wake of more
intensive herbicide use, especially applications later in the season on herbicide- resistant crop varieties.
While current risk assessment science suggests that glyphosate is among the safer herbicides per hectare
treated in terms of human health risks, both the frequency of human exposures and levels of exposure via
food, drinking water, and the air have no doubt risen in the U.S. in recent years. Two - thirds to 100% of
air and rainfall samples tested in Mississippi and Iowa in 2007 -2008 contained glyphosate [341.
The likely approval and use of herbicide- resistant crops in the U.S. engineered to survive applications of
multiple herbicides adds tricky new dimensions to herbicide -risk assessments. Applications later in the
growing season will be more likely to lead to residues in silage or forage crops. As a result, herbicide
residues in milk, meat, or other animal products might become more common. The jump in herbicide
volumes applied during June and July will increase the risk of drift and herbicide movement via
volatilization, possibly exposing people via the air, water, or crops grown in the proximity of treated
fields. Risks from the drift and volatilization of 2,4 -D and dicamba are of special concern, given that these
two herbicides have triggered thousands of non- target crop damage episodes over the last 20 years in the
U.S. Indeed, for several years, 2,4 -D has been the leading cause of crop damage episodes investigated by
State departments of agriculture [.,_�].
Environmental Impacts linked to HR (Herbal Resistant ) Technology. A long list of environmental
effects can be triggered, or made worse, by the more intensive herbicide use required to keep pace with
weeds in farming systems heavily reliant on herbicide- resistant crops. Glyphosate has been shown to
impair soil microbial communities in ways that can increase plant vulnerability to pathogens [36 -38],
while also reducing availability of certain soil minerals and micronutrients [39]. Landscapes dominated
by herbicide- resistant crops support fewer insect and bird species-, e.g., a study in the American Midwest
reported a 58% decline in milkweed and an 81% drop in monarch butterflies from 1999 to 2010 [40].
Heavy use of glyphosate can reduce earthworm viability [4-1] and water use efficiency [42]. Several
studies have documented reductions in nitrogen fixation in herbicide - resistant soybean fields sprayed with
glyphosate [4 �,-1_ }]. Transgene flow from herbicide- resistant crops can occur via multiple mechanisms and
can persist in weedy relatives [45].
Individually, these environmental impacts appear, for the most part, of the same nature and in the same
ballpark as the risks associated with other herbicide -based farming systems, but collectively they raise
novel concerns over long -term, possibly serious impacts on biodiversity, soil and plant health, water
quality, aquatic ecosystem integrity, and human and animal health. " To view the entire study go to
?4 from the Charles Benbrook study of the USDA's o\Nn
statistics.
7. Health effects of resistance to anti- biotics.
GMO corporations have utilized their power to buy up more land and have vastly wider
impacts on the environment and health. The weather in Hawaii has ideal growing conditions,
enterprise tax incentives are offered by the state, and state's lax regulation has traditionally
promoted the biotech industry. With lobbyists and friends in key positions in government and
money to spare, they have managed to be even above the law with what has been dubbed the
Monsanto Protection Act at the federal level.
GMO companies are aggressive in their policies and plans to control the world's food
supply, utilization of agricultural lands and their standard rhetoric on health safety. The
later should not be confused with "policy on health. "
1. They are well protected by patents on life forms,
2. Have iron clad contracts that lock farmers into their system
>. Put non -gmo farmers at a disadvantage and in an uneven playing field due to
genetic pollution and pesticide drift. (Center for Food Safety booklet provided under
separate cover is an example of the lack of equitable playing field between corporate and
individual farmers),
4. They have initiated ag gag bills in various states
5. as well as preemption and exemption bills, such as bills introduced in the recent and past
HI legislative sessions,
6. While they refer to the FDA approvals, most approvals for their crops occured in 1996 in
which the FDA had no safety protocol in place and who have relied on the biotech
industry to provide that.
To this day the FDA does not have requirements for pre or post market human studies on
GMOs, even though in Europe 3 months animal studies have been the norm, and
currently the FDA requires 120 day animal studies for approval and must meet certain
USDA requirements related to pesticide and pest status.
The industry has fiercely opposed GMO labeling and the right to know and promoted
propaganda to undermine organics and the actual costs of GMO labeling. The Stanford
Study was criticized on a number of parameters that were left out of the study.
llttt):; itci tut- ulsociCt \..co17,t'.r.i-LliculOiIS- �tu(iN - clziini� -�yr, anic- s<imC- as -Cun\ elltional ,
llup: oPitliunator.blogs.l1 tiillc Cum'_'U12 ;'1(1 0? th it- 91a »ed- stanli�td -stud
http: �y�rry.hul�i_in�tt>i�hust c�n�� r��h�r�- t� _c�r�anic- lix,�l- �s- cc�mc��tiu h 18�7KU_'..htn�l
httt�: -- ti� l� ��,cur� �tt��, pia. urr. ��-,.._, �: utli�r�ls- sf�in- �,n- �,r�,�al�i� -ul Icguc�l� - taint�•d -h�
IMP: %or1arricfa1-111,.\\ Su.rdu hlt > 1-1 . de\ 11- 111 - 111C- dct.ril,.
9. Studies on health have been blocked by patent agreements, as well as protected from view by
utilizing HIPPA requirements of medical facilities as well as the Freedom of Information Act
restrictions.
Inadequacy of existing protections in HI state law to protect health and environment with
co- existence of GMOs, conventional and organic farming methods
RE: GMO general use or restricted use pesticides contained within the seed or applied externally,
1. There has not yet been a political climate in Hawaii to get self - registry requirement on
the state Pesticide Control website or sign up for robo calling or call a hot line for pesticide
warning notification requirements. There are no required buffer zones in place in state
statute that would protect and benefit organic crop owners, schools, child care facilities,
health care facilities, residents, tourists, motorists or businesses from aerial or boomer, or
hand pesticide spraying of crops, landscaping, recreation areas or roadside spraying other
than a sign for restricted use pesticides that may or may not be readable..
2. In 2006 experimental pesticide drift caused health harms to 1 I children who had to go to
the hospital and caused 2 children to immediately faint in a small class room of students at
Waimea Canyon School. Pesticide drift harms have occured in two other schools that I am aware
of via internet search and communications.
HB1386 was introduced following that incident which would have provided notification of
pesticide application and provided buffer protections, but was deferred; Even though
reintroduced in the 2013 session, that bill wasn't heard in legislative Committee this year. Other
states such as California, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut adequately provide for reasonable
notification and buffer- zones in law.
3. H13673 passed this year instead which was a step to assess other state laws on restricted use
pesticides, and provides registry for reporting restrictive use pesticides posting on line subject to
the Freedom of Information Act restrictions, but nothing occurred to provide immediate relief
for residents to help them get out of harms way from fertilizers, the layering of general use
pesticides that create novel combinations in GMO experimental testing in open fields, or
even Roundup along roadways. These novel ingredients all have been quite harmful to the
health of those who have reported to her," according to Peggy Kadey, president of the Kauai
Network for the Chemically Injured.
4. Hawaii state pesticide law HRSI149A and AR -66 currently only require notification by
sign (which may or may not be seen) for the benefit of the pesticide sprayer. The primary
directive is as the pesticide label reads: to prevent pesticide drift to other persons or property,
that is the Hawaii law. Period.
I do not recommend further complications with GMO pollen or pesticide drift and
experimentation with novel combinations layered with unknown effects on humans, to the
aina or to our waters. The 200 + resident class action lawsuit vs Pioneer on the current
devastation to West Kauai as expressed by Kauai Council member Gary Hooser enclosed,
should be a fair warning to the Big Island, as well as the interview with Earth Justice Paul
Achitoff, so I hope you take the two enclosed articles seriously. The ability to coexist between
GMO growing crops. conventional crops and organic needs much further state regulation to even
minimally co -exist without harms.
Beware pre- emptions by the biotech industry. I have concerns with pre- emption bills that
preempt protections of its citizens from agricultural chemical exposure, particularly the attempt
by biotech on SB727 to remove protection of health and life from our county charters
which fortunately failed in the 2013 legislative session due to outcry, Attempts have been
made in past legislation to prohibit the state and county from banning or otherwise
regulating activities related to genetically- modified plant organisms (GMOs). In the 2013
legislative session SB586 purported to be an agriculture self - sufficiency bill, passed and is
at the governor's office. It should be vetoed in my opinion. Unfortunately, it exempts oversite
from county per view on a number of agricultural building and aqua culture tanks and structures
which were suppose to be minimal risk to health and life. However, without even county
minimal requirements of oversite, compliance with plans and building permit and code
requirements during the building process, or historic preservation of review with respect for
cultural iwi rights, big ag and bioteech has once again circumvented county protection for all its
citizens for health and life of the land. SB586 further gave exemptions for GMO lack of oversite
on farm raised fish tank location, with fish fed GMO soy for fertilizer unlabeled and sold -which
can harm organic crops if applied unbeknownst by the organic gardener, or with GMO fish
accidentally released into our gulches, streams and ocean. Past legislation to limit genetic testing
to contained covered facilities and transport vehicles failed. The state and county liability was
waived, except in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the State or the county,
and provided NO protection to adjoining ag or rural lands, creates potential nuisances or harms
to organic lands, and environmental impacts in sensitive or special management areas (SMA).
Inadequacy of existing protections to health and environment with co- existence of GMOs,
conventional and organic farming methods. Chemically grown crops and foods produced
locally may be cheaper than organic and may aid the local economy, but they pollute the ground
water, kill the soil food web, decrease the soil's ability to sequester climate - destabilizing
greenhouse gases, broadcast pesticides into the air, poison farmworkers, and incrementally
poison consumers with toxic residues on their foods. "Local" pesticides, GMOs, and chemical
fertilizers are just as poisonous as those used in California, Mexico, Chile, or
China ". llttp:, \\.naturalnes\s.com (1; 1519 local organic farnliii`�.hUn1= $ixii� l:lAcA�1
111
Until the state cleans l(p its act and gets regulations in statute "for notification procedures on
pesticicle spraying" and buffer gone regulations that benefil aclfoining and surr•ouncling
properties, GE Free zones are created, or prat in statute containment ofeYI)er•imental GA10
testing, there is not a /eivl playing frelcl,fbr co-existence of GA10, conventional, and organic
fin °rners. " Residents and farmers have no choice but to install protections at the county level.
It's Not About Vadug.Tbe Corn By Kauai Council member Gary Hooser
Posted on l ehruar\ ? 1, 201 3 by lw sci,
It's not about eating the corn. Not for me anyway. The decision to eat or not eat the corn is only
a small reason I support the labeling of genetically modified foods and hold deep reservations
about the industry as a whole.
People on my island are getting sick. Many believe their sickness is being caused by the
secondary and cumulative impacts connected to the growing of genetically modified organisms.
Yet when I've asked these companies directly and officially in writing to disclose what
chemicals and in what quantities they are spraying, the industrial agrochemical GMO companies
on Kauai have refused to do so.
For me, that alone is enough to keep me from buying their products or supporting their industry,
and to support full labeling requirements.
63 countries around the world including all of Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia and New Zealand
require mandatory labeling of GMO products. Sonic countries have banned these products
completely.
Many questions exist and many doubts persist. There are valid health concerns ranging from
allergen sensitivities to hormonal disruption to cancer, related to the GMO's and to the pesticide
spraying that accompanies them.
There are concerns about the globalization and corporate ownership of the worlds food supply.
There are ethical and moral questions pertaining to the concept of corporations owning patents
on living organisms both plant and animal, and to the increased diminishment of bio- diversity.
All valid reasons consumers may not want to buy these products and thus the need to require
labeling.
For me, it's personal.
Kauai is ground zero in the GMO industry. These industrial agrochemical operations dominate
the landscape of Kauai's west side and are now moving into the southern and eastern land as
well. The fields of mostly genetically modified corn not intended for human consumption grow
on approximately 12,000 acres of prime farmland stretching from the base of the mountains
down to within just feet of the pristine ocean waters.
These crops are subject to spraying with toxic pesticides up to 6 days a week.
Over 200 residents of WaimeaValley have tiled suit claiming negative impacts from pesticide
laden dust blowing into their homes and onto their bodies. Biologists estimate over 50,000 sea
urchins died last year in near shore west -side waters.
People in all parts of Kauai County are growing increasingly concerned about the impacts that
result from these companies spraying their fields with toxic and experimental chemicals that then
flow into streams and near shore waters and cling to the dust which blows daily into
neighborhoods and schools.
Yet these agrochemical companies, who are required by law to keep records of their pesticide
use, tell me blithely to go elsewhere for the data.
About half the land used for GMO production on Kauai are public lands upon which zero
property tax is paid. But they refuse to disclose to the public what they are growing or what they
are spraying on these public lands. These large transnational corporations transfer their end
products to related subsidiaries, benefit from Enterprise Zone and other GET exemptions and
consequently pay zero GET tax on the products they produce.
State law and terms of the public lands lease /license require compliance with Hawaii's
environmental review law Chapter 343HRS, yet no documentation demonstrating compliance
exists, no exemption declaration, no environmental assessment and no environmental impact
statement.
Groxving genetically modified organisms, using experimental pesticides and spraying a wide
array of restricted and non restricted pesticides on a mass scale have impacts on our island, our
health and our environment. There are direct impacts, secondary impacts and cumulative
impacts but we don't know what those impacts are because they have never been properly
evaluated — and the companies in question won't even give us the information needed to make a
proper evaluation.
So yes, I support labeling. Absolutely.
Labeling, mandatory disclosure and a permitting process that requires a comprehensive review of
the significant environmental and health impacts to our island and our community caused by this
industry — I support them all, because as you can see this is about much more than just eating the
corn.
Gary Hooser
Member Kauai County Council — Former Director of the Office of Environmental Quality
Control for State of Hawaii — Former Hawaii State Senator and Majority Leader
GMOs in Hawaii
http: / /honoluluweekly.com /cover /2009/04/a- seed -of- doubt/
by Joan Conrow I Apr 8, 2009
With thousands of acres of farmland across the Islands already devoted to genetically modified
seeds, there are few signs that Hawaii is ready to get serious about regulation.
Ask folks to name Hawaii's most valuable farm crop and they'll likely say sugar or pineapple,
maybe hazard a guess at macadamia nuts. Few will answer correctly –seeds –and even fewer will
know that at least half that industry is devoted to growing genetically - modified organisms, or
GMOs.
GMO is the catch phrase for any plant, animal, bacteria or virus with genetic material that has
been altered through engineering. This is commonly done by forcing a gene, usually through use
of a virus, bacteria or cell bombardment, from one organism into another to create an entirely
new organism with desired traits, which can then be patented by its creator. Although born in a
laboratory, genetically- engineered (GE) plants must be tested in the real world of soil and sun.
Those that succeed are grown on a larger scale, producing seed for commercial farmers who are
not legally allowed to save patented seed from their harvests. and so must buy new supplies each
year.
I lawaii performs both functions, with land throughout the state being used to test and produce
GE seed crops. Hailed by some as 21 st century wonder plants that will feed a hungry, weather -
beaten planet, and denounced by others as a craven corporate bid to control the global seed
supply, GE crops are driving a fierce international debate over the future of farming.
And unbeknownst to most residents and visitors, Hawaii is in the thick of it.
Fruitful experimentation
In the past two decades, the Islands have hosted some 2,252 outdoor tests for experimental GE
plants, more than any other place. Open -air field trials have been conducted on corn, soybeans,
cotton, potatoes, wheat, alfalfa, beets, rice, safflower, sorghum, sunflowers, sugar cane,
pineapple, dendrobium orchids, anthurium, coffee and papaya, among others. About 130 now are
under way throughout the state.
Some of Hawaii's outdoor testsby companies such as Monsanto, ProdiGene, Garst Seed Co.
and Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC) —also involved biopharmaceuticals, which
refers to plants genetically- engineered to produce medical supplies, drugs. vaccines and
industrial chemicals. According to court documents, these trials involved experimental AIDS and
hepatitis B vaccines; growth hormones; enzyme production from human genes; and aprotinin, a
blood - clotting cow protein that is also an insect toxin. Information about where these tests were
done remains blocked by a court order.
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, who brought a lawsuit seeking to halt these open -air
biopharm trials in Hawaii until they could be assessed for environmental and public health risks,
said the crops reportedly were harvested while the case was in litigation and it does not appear
that any biopharms have been planted since. He and his staff monitor a Virginia Tech website
([ \\ w w i�E�.._� t ��iu]) that posts applications for field trial permits and their status. It usually, but
not always, discloses the reason for the test, the crop involved and whether it is considered a
biopharmaceutical. But while it names the state, it does not disclose the specific location, and
details about biopharm tests are rarely included.
The industry maintains that such confidentiality is needed to protect their crops from vandalism
and their trade secrets from competitors. The federal government supports that stance, and the
state has followed its lead, with both the University of 1- fawaii and various state agencies
consistently fighting legislation requiring disclosure of GE crop sites. In testimony presented in
February in opposition to one such bill, which has since died, James R. Gaines, the University's
vice - president for research, cited concerns about "the threat to field research, vandalism and
destruction of research crops as has happened dining the development of the transgenic papaya.'
Ted Liu, director of the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, testified
that, "over- regulation contributes to Hawaii's anti - business image, jeopardizing the success of
established businesses as well as the potential of attracting new investment to the State. "
The state Department of Agriculture also strongly opposed the bill, saying the permitting and
regulating of field tests "is the province of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)." But
some contend the federal regulatory process is tainted. Since the administration of George H.W.
Bush, biotechnology industry officials have been tapped to till key positions in the three agencies
charged with regulating GMOs, and were at the helm of the USDA when it ruled that crops and
foods containing GMOs are essentially the same as their conventional counterparts, and thus
pose no danger to people or ecosystems. More recently, President Obama came under fire for
choosing Tom Vilsack, who supports both GE and biopharm crops, as his Agriculture Secretary.
GMO opponents note that the USDA also has funded and conducted extensive biotech research,
including the so- called "terminator technology" that prevents the second -year propagation of GE
seed, thus ensuring that farmers must buy new seeds each season. Still others have criticized
what they characterize as the USDA's "rubber stamp " approach to field trial permit applications.
According to a report published by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the agency has
rejected only 3.5 percent of the more than 40,000 permit applications submitted, and those were
due to incomplete applications and paperwork errors.
"Experimental field trials of GE agricultural crops in Hawaii are conducted without adequate
oversight or sometimes even the knowledge of where the trial is located," said Nancy
Redfeather, a Big Island coffee grower and member of Hawaii SEED, a statewide group of
farmers, environmentalists, scientists, cultural leaders and others organized against GMO crops
in Hawaii. Some Hawaii residents also have expressed concern about the chemical s—atrazine
and heptachlor among them —used on GNIO test plots around the state, saying they could be
harming agricultural workers and those who live or work near the fields, as well as the
environment.
"On Kauai, some of the testing is to develop herbicide - resistant crops that tolerate multiple
chemicals, " said Jeri Di Pietro of GMO Free Kauai "So the research going on here includes
spraying a cocktail of chemicals that will not kill the plants. The amount of spraying escalates as
they look for the high dose tolerance level. This massive amount of chemical application is going
on near our schools, coastline and bird sanctuaries. Very few studies have been done on how to
mitigate contamination of soil and bacteria where genetically engineered crops have been
grown.
Seed companies have consistently defended their cultivation and chemical application practices
as complying with federal regulations, and the Environmental Protection Agency has issued few
citations. It fined Syngenta Seeds $17,550 last year for two pesticide - related violations, while in
2002 Pioneer Hi -Bred and Mycogen Seeds, a unit of Dow Agrosciences, agreed to each pay a
tune of less than $10,000 after the EPA cited them for failing to meet isolation and containment
requirements during field trials on Kauai and Molokai. respectively.
This is not a drill
But testing isn't the only purpose that Hawaii fields serve. Agricultural lands throughout the state
also are used to grow GE seed for commercial farmers, with much of the activity centered on
Oahu, Molokai and Kauai. About half of the 4,000 acres in seed crops statewide are cultivated in
GMOs, according to industry estimates. About 97 percent of it is "Roundup Ready" corn, which
can withstand direct applications of Monsanto's herbicide. GE seed crops that produce their own
insecticides are also being grown.
Seed companies have been taking advantage of Hawaii's year -round growing season since the
mid- 1970s. But with an annual value of just $20 million two decades ago, the seed industry was
a big player in Islands agriculture. Now, it's the star —and the only one that's rising. With a
record -high value of $146.3 million last season, the seed industry accounts for about a quarter of
the state's total farm revenues, eclipsing every other commodity. It "s also expanding rapidly,
increasing 42 percent last year alone.
The steady growth is no accident. The state has been recruiting biotech businesses and
investment since the mid- 1990s, when former Gov. Ben Cayetano endorsed the industry as a
clean, high -tech way to save agriculture and diversify the economy. Now all the major chemical
and agribusiness companies involved in GMOs are established in Hawaii. These include Dow
AgroScience, Syngenta and BASF, as well as Dupont's Pioneer Hi -Bred International, the
world's largest seed company. The biggest local grower is Monsanto, which previously produced
the toxins subpolychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) and dioxin and is now a global leader in GE
seeds, with some 674 biotechnology, patents.
Carol Okada, manager of the state DOA's Plant Quarantine Branch, which oversees GMOs in
Hawaii, was quoted in Scientific.Iniericun magazine last year as saying the booming seed
business is in the Islands to stay. "Even though it's controversial here, the seed industry is now
the No. 1 industry for us and it is very important in terms of the economy, dealing with invasive
species and giving farmers choices."
A state of denial
The state's ongoing support for the industry doesn't sit well with everyone.
"These biotech companies are receiving huge state and federal subsides and tax incentives to
come here, " Di Pietro said. "Most of the seed company profits are realized out of state. Biotech
companies use a large portion of our ag land and water, yet produce no food that we can eat. We
experience little benefit and receive much environmental degradation that we will be left for us
to mitigate."
It's unclear just how much degradation is associated with GE crops because neither the state nor
federal governments required companies to conduct Environmental hnpact Statements before
growing them here. In the Earthjustice suit, federal ,fudge J. Michael Seabright found the USDA
acted in "utter disregard" of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection
Act when it granted permits for the biopharm field tests before conducting environmental
studies, Achitoff said.
"They're environmentally anything but benign," Achitoff said, noting that GE crops have been
shown to contaminate conventional and organic crops" usually through the unintentional mixing
of commercial seed. In Hawaii, birds are also thought to have played a role in spreading the
seeds of the Rainbow papaya, which was genetically engineered to resist the ringspot virus. Its
genetic traits have been found in both the fruit and seed of traditional varieties" prompting an
outcry from health- conscious consumers and organic farmers. who could lose their certification
if their crops contain CMOs.
Both organic and conventional farmers face another peril from crop contamination. Monsanto is
especially aggressive in enforcing its patents, Achitoff said, and has investigated and /or sued
thousands of American and Canadian farmers for saving seeds with its patented GMO traits. The
company has employed private investigators who secretly videotape and photograph farmers,
infiltrate community meetings and gather information from informants about farming activities,
according to an article published in FanitY Fair last year. As a result, Achitoff said, some
farmers have paid huge tines to Monsanto, even though they were growing the crops
inadvertently.
Herbicide- resistant varieties of soybean and corn, which represent the bulk of GE crops now
being grown, present another environmental concern, Achitoff said. Their cultivation has given
rise to herbicide- resistant "super weeds" that require stronger chemicals for eradication, and
studies also have shown that farmers raising "Roundup Ready" crops use more herbicide than
those growing conventional varieties.
Biotech researchers and seed companies, however, maintain that GE crops are safe because
nothing has turned up to indicate otherwise. hi testimony to the state Senate earlier this year,
Richard Manshardt, a professor and plant geneticist at UH's College of Tropical Agriculture and
Human Resources (CTAHR) asserted that "the biological impacts of current GE crops are not
different or greater than those caused by production and distribution of conventional or organic
crops. In the specific case of the virus- disease - resistant Hawaiian papayas with which I am
personally familiar, no harmful environmental, agricultural or human health issues were found to
be unique to GE papayas in seven years of testing during development or 10 years of production
after commercial release."
Achitoff, however, said the university researchers are pawns of the biotech industry. "Essentially
what they want is the finding and it's distorted their perspective on the safety of GMOs. We
have people at CTAHR and the Farm Bureau who have been essentially bought by the biotech
industry and they're the ones who howl most loudly to the Legislature."'
Although Hawaii has been reluctant to control, or even scrutinize, the GE crops grown by its
seed industry, Achitoff is seeing "a slow but steady trend away from the complete laissez -faire
approach toward regulation " on the national level. With new studies showing a link between GE
products and health problems, and consumers embracing healthier eating practices, "people will
be looking to government and demanding a different approach in regard to GMO regulations,"
he said. "I "m optimistic about it. "
Planted with good intentions
Despite claims that genetic engineering (GE) will lead to crops that can withstand drought,
increase yields and boost nutrition, no GE plants with those specific traits have yet been
developed for commercial cultivation.
Instead, most of the research has been devoted to producing crops that can withstand direct
applications of herbicides, most notably Roundup, which is produced by biotechnology giant
Monsanto. These herbicide - resistant varieties account for about 80 percent of the GE crops now
being grown. The second most common crops are those that have been engineered to produce
their own pesticides.
So far, the USDA has approved GE varieties of soybeans, corn (except blue corn, red corn and
popcorn), canola, sugar beets, zucchini, crookneck squash and papaya. GE crops are used heavily
as animal feed, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are common in products on
supermarket shelves. (For a free shopping guide, visit )N.or(_,].)
Another 100 GE crops are waiting in the wings, including virtually every fruit, vegetable and
grain now commonly eaten. The biotech industry also has developed "terminator technology,"
which prevents a plant from making seeds, but it has not yet been deployed.
Legislation (as of 2009)
Genetic engineering is a perennially hot topic in the Hawaii Legislature, and two bills that would
ban the development, testing and propagation of genetically- modified taro in Hawaii are still
alive.
Senate Bill 709 has been amended since its introduction to change its effective date to the year
2050. while House Bill 1663 has similar language, but a July 2009 effective date. Meanwhile,
the fate of House Bill 1226 is uncertain. Known as the "pre - emption bill," it would prohibit the
state and county from banning or otherwise regulating activities related to genetically- modified
plant organisms (CMOs).
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, who has litigated matters related to GMOs, said the bill is
bucking national legal trends regarding pre - emption measures as contrary to the public interest.
"Essentially, it's the state saying voluntarily, unilaterally, without any instruction from the
federal government or Congress, we're going to tie our hands and make it impossible to do
anything about GMOs,"' Achitoff said.
Although House Speaker Calvin Say has refused to disclose who asked him to introduce the bill,
Achitoff said "there's no doubt in my mind it came from the (biotech) industry and it's consistent
with similar legislation that's been put forth by Monsanto and others in a number of other
states."
The bill passed the house and was referred to the Senate committee on energy and environment,
where Chairman Mile Gabbard pronounced it "a very bad bill" and said he does not plan to
schedule it for a hearing. While that would normally scuttle a measure, opponents are worried it
might be revived using a technique called "gut and replace, " in which the contents of a live bill
are stripped and replaced with a dead one, or by amending another bill, such as one of those
related to GMO taro.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Respectfully Submitted,
Unmani Cynthia Groves
Llnnlalllb U maul.net
214 -9324 - --
105 Kulipuu St.
Kihei, H1
0"01/1"
` Iffiff
PSMTC
BILL 79 74
CDOMM. 21 #
SUBA11ITTE, D BYI�
UNMANI CYN"I'l-IIA GROVES
105 KU'LIPU'U STREET
KIHE171-1196753
effilphl,
. ....... ..
K T
Mon,Aanto vA. U.S. Far men could not have been completed without the hard
work and dedication of numerous individuals including Kiki Hubbard,
Ellen Kittredge, Craig Culp, Peter DiMauro, Steve Blackburn, Maggie Douglas,
Jessica Dowling, ill an. Dre,wes, Kristin Grote, Joel Perkovich, Henry Steinberg
and Jessica :agile. We are especially grateful to the numerous farmers and
attorneys that not only made themselves available to us but shared their stories
and provided much of the information that made this report possible. It was
their stories of perseverance in the face of unjust and ruthless prosecution
that served as an inspiration to embark upon this project.
The Center for Food Safety would especially like to thank the
CornerStone Campaign for the generous support that made this entire project
possible. US would also like to thank the John Merck Fund, Panta Rhea
Foundation, and Zimmerman Foundation for continuing support that aided
completion of this endeavor.
Andrew Kimbrell Joseph Mendelson
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
C H A P T El R
Seizing Control: Monsainto's Path to Domination of Biotech Crops
and U.S. Agriculture
7
Genetically Engineering America's Staple Crops
8
Cornering the Market
9;
Monsanto Goes on a Patenting Spree!
11
Control Through Contraict
13
Guilt By Contamination
14
CHAPTER ()
New Invasive Pest: Monsanto's Technology Agreement
Hits Farmers and
17
Placing the Market Burden on the Farmer
19
Avoiding Blame for Spreading Patented Genetic Material
20
Permanently Tying Farmers to Monsanto
20
Agreement Breaches Often End in Bankruptcy
21
CHAPTER G
Prosecuting American Farmers: Monsantol's Investigations,
Coerced Settlements & Lawsuits
23
Investigations
23
Lawsuits
30
CHAPTER C)
Battling Monsanto-. Farmers Share their Stories
37
Contamination Events
38
Farmers Who Unknowingly Planted and/or Sold Monsanto, Seed
42
Farmers Who Never Signed the Technology Agreement lout Saved Seed
42
Farmers Who Signed the Technology Agreement and Saved Seed
451
Perspective
47
CHAPTER (Di
Policy Options: Preventing the Prosecution of America's Farmers
49
NOTES 57
A P P E N D I X () 61
31
15", 11 A
In May 2003,, the Center for Food Safety embarked on a project to determine
the extent to which American farmers have been impacted by litigation arising
from the use of patented genetically engineered crops. After extensive
research and numerous interviews with farmers and lawyers, CFS found that
Monsanto, the world's leading agricultural biotechnology company, has used
heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally
changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing
less than an assault on the foundations of' farming practices and traditions
that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the
world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed.
Monsanto's position as a leader in the field of agricultural biotechnology
and its success in contractually binding farmers to its genetically engineered
seeds result from its concerted effort to control patents on genetic engineering
technology, seed germplas,m, and a farmer's use of its engineered seed.
Monsanto begins the process of seizing control of' farmers' practices by getting
them to sign the company's technology agreement upon purchasing patented
seeds. This agreement allows Monsanto to conduct property investigations,
exposes the farmer to huge financial liability, binds, the farmer to Monsanto's
oversight for multiple, years, and includes a variety of other conditions that
have effectively defined what rights a farmer does and does not have in planting,
harvesting, and selling genetically engineered seed.
In general, Monsanto's efforts to prosecute farmers can be divided
into three stages: investigations of farmers, out-of-court settlements, and
litigation against farmers Monsanto believes are in breach of contract or
engaged in patent infringement. Monsanto itself admits to aggressively
investigating farmers it suspects of transgressions,, and evidence suggests
the numbers reach into, the thousands. According to farmers interviewed by
CFS, these thousands of investigations frequently lead to the second stage.-
Monsanto pressuring the farmer to settle out of court for an undisclosed
sum and other terms agreed to in confidential settlements.
For some farmers, Monsanto's investigation of them will lead to the
courtroom. To date, Monsanto has filed go lawsuits against American farmers.
The lawsuits involve 1-47 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies,
and have been directed at farmers residing in half of the states in the U.S. The
odds are clearly stacked against the farmer-. Monsanto has an annual budget
of Rio million dollars, and a staff Of 75 devoted _Ao to investigating and
The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as
a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,o52, oo.00. Total recorded judgments
granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602-82. Farmers have
paid a can Of $,412,259,•54 for cases with recorded judgments.
Startling though these numbers are, they do not begin to tell the whole
story. Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are
sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating
them. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the go lawsuits
CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements.
No farmer is safe from the long reach of Monsanto. Farmers have
been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone
else's genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a
previous year's crop has sprouted, or "volunteered," in fields planted with
non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they
never signed Monsanto's technology agreement but still planted the patented
crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been
applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use
was, unwitting or a contract was never signed.
Since the introduction of genetically engineered crops, farming for
thousands of America's farmers has been fundamentally altered; they have
been forced into dangerous and uncharted territory and have found they are
the worse for it. As growing numbers, of farmers become subject to harassment,
investigation, and prosecution by Monsanto over supposed infringement of its
seed patents and technology agreements, there will have to be increased pressure
to reverse the governmental policies that are allowing this persecution. Various
policy options include passing local and state-wide bans or moratoriums on
plantings of genetically engineered crops; amending the Patent Act so that
genetically engineered plants will no longer be patentable subject matter and
so that seed saving is not considered patent infringement; and legislating to
prevent farmers from being liable, for patent infringement through biological
pollution. Implementation of these, and a variety of other options discussed in
more detail in the report, is critical. Nothing less than the future of America's
farmers and farming communities is at stake.
5'
� \%�
i @ ` u r
Monsanto's Path to Dominati"011
of Biotech Crops and U.S. Agriculture
\ \ » \, ƒ { \:
A "Imilummalill
B e c a se o o i s a o's �p a t et� s, Monsanto's domination through
'W' [ier"i any these three main tactics is aided by one
becot-i"ies (11 e d important fact that Monsanto has, thus
1�,(v,ith peai-ten-ted,h"ai-ts,, t[ tat far, been able to use to its advantage:
ci�qp Ilwn ffec�ti,,v�Oy beci,,)i ies t["lie plants naturally tend to reproduce
Of through pollen and seed dispersal and, in
the process, can cross-pollinate with other
plants. Because Monsanto has patents on
its genetically engineered traits and seeds, when non - genetically engineered
crops become contaminated with patented traits, the contaminated crop
effectively becomes the property of Monsanto, even for those farmers who
did not purchase or knowingly use Monsanto's patented technology. As Don
Westfall, a key biotech food industry consultant, commented in 2001. "'The
hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there"s
nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.'12 The sum of these
factors has enabled Monsanto to influence America's farmers and the fate of
American agriculture in ways previously unimaginable.
1 E, E'F'!,,, [1J C R I C 'S
F` 1, l-, L,Y F" 1, N
Monsanto's research led to the development of the two main types of genetically
engineered crops used in the world today: herbicide- tolerant and insect-resistant.
Monsanto's herbicide- tolerant plants are engineered to withstand applications
of Roundup, Monsanto's most popular herbicide. Since the introduction of these
herbicide - tolerant crops in the United States nine years ago, herbicide use has
increased by 138 million pounds.' Insect-resistant varieties are engineered so
that a toxin normally produced by a naturally occurring bacteria, called
Racily thuringienALA (Bt), is instead produced by the plant due to insertion of
the toxin gene. The Bt toxin is effective in killing butterflies, moths, and beetles
upon ingestion. Bt is one of the most effective natural pesticides available
for growers, of organic crops. Widespread plantings of Bt crops could lead to
increased resistance building up in populations of the target pests, and threaten
to reduce the effectiveness of this natural pesticide for all users.
The first commercial planting of Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant
Roundup Ready soy took place in 1996. Soon thereafter, Monsanto, commer-
cialized Roundup Ready cotton and canola and Bt varieties of corn, cotton
and potatoes,. Currently, there are only four main genetically engineered
food crops commercialized in the United States and Canada: soy, cotton,,
corn, and canola. The dominance of these crops is already evident in the U.S.:
in Zoo 4, this technology accounted for 85 percent of all U.S. soy acreage, 45
percent of all corn acreage, and 76 percent of all cotton acreage .4 'I'n 2003, 84
percent of U.S. canola acreage was genetically engineered.'
o s a III i to u s cl o it- i a t i o i 'i o,f
"ILI-i,e seed r'i'-i&�I<&t has t-t-,iade
i�-i
v, a t- e �t i e s o,f s o t-ire ie stapie (11,-lrops
[-,ta III ,,,d 'to fincl.,
the seed technology for at least go percent
of the world's genetically engineered crops.' The company also directly or
indirectly controls almost half of the American corn germplasm market and
mo�st of the soybean market.'
#.ne method employed by Monsanto to increase sales of its geneticallv,
R[-i
ci,,qps is cfwh,-Itfflit-i�g ai�,-,�d
patei-vts
I"I E.,�, r s ri e, k,v!a et II , e s
not genetically altered in some way.""
JI
A
U.S. patents granted to Monsanto for its "inventions" cover not only the
unique gene sequences used to create a genetically engineered organism but
also the seeds and plants themselves. Because the patents only allow for the
exchange and use of seeds if a license is first obtained from the patent holder,
farmers possessing patented seeds are prohibited by la: w from saving the
for use the next year, essentiall revokin g a right that has blee�n central to
farming for over io,,000 years."
As a result of the Supreme Court and U.S. M o r b t o C U
Patent and Trademark Office (U.S. PTO) rulings on 1"i o 1 6 47 o "I"", p I a ri t
patents on life, Monsanto was able to seek p s,
"Patents on all its new genetic engineering tech- ofl-,i,&a 1)``otech cor ,r w p a
niques and genetically engineered seed variet'i,es.
So, throughout the ig8o's and early 19go's, Monsanto actively built its genetic
engineering capacity and was careful to patent its new discovered techniques,
and products along the way, the first of which was a pletunia de�velopled in
1983. The flower was engineered using Agrobacterium tumef aciens, a, bacteria
that acts as a genetic engineer. A year later, Monsanto sent a claim to the
U.S. patent office asserting ownership of an important genetic mechanism
found in the cauliflower moisaic virus, which serves to activate genes. This
mechanismI the 35S promoter, is one of the most important tools in the too�lbox
of any genetic engineer. When Monsanto was eventually awarded a patent for
the promoter,, it gained the ability to controll its use by other biotech companies
by forcing them to pay dearly fore it. 13
With the passage of the Plant Patent Act
(PPA) in 1930, both houses of Congress
rejected the notion that sexually reproducing
plants should be subject to patent protection.
Again in 1968, a proposed amendment to the
PPA was defeated that would have extended
patent applications to include sexually repro-
ducing plants. Following this defeat, however,
Congress decided that some form, of protection
for these plants was warranted. In 1970,
Congress enacted the Plant Variety
Protection Act (PVPA), an alternative form
of plant variety protection for sexually
reproducing plants. The act grants a 20-year
term of protection for most crops, and grants
the owner exclusive rights to mu�lltiply and
market the seed of that variety.' Significantly,
Congress created two exemptions to the
rights granted under the PVPA that would
allow researchers to use PVPA-pirotected
varieties in order to continue the free exchange
of germpilasm within the research community,
and would allow farmers to save patented
seed for re-planting.
The first patent on life was awarded in 1980
accepting patent applications for such
plants, despite the fact that Congress had
never given the U.S. PTO authority to grant
utility patents for sexually reproducing plants.
Unlike the statutory exemptions included in
PAPA, the plant utility patent allows its holders
to exclude others from using the patented
variety for research and agricultural purposes.
In 2001, the Supreme Court decision in J.E.M
Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Internationol
upheld the patenting of plants, concluding
that because Congress failed to explicitly
exclude plants in the provision of the Patent
Act that provides for utility patents there
was no reason why extending patents to
plants should be viewed as contrary to
congressional intent.'
1 Section 2483, of the PUPA states, "Every certificate of
plant variety protection shall certify that the breeder
has the right, during the term of the plant variety pro
tection, to exclude others from selling the variety, or
offering it for sale, or reproducing it, or importing it, or
exporting it, or using it in producing a hybrid or differ-
ent variety therefrom, to the extent provided by this
Act," 7 USC 2483.
2 Ex part�e Hibberd, 227 U.SY.Q. 443 (Bd. Pat. App, &
Interferences 1985). Ex Parte Hibberd established the
right of plant breeders to patent their plant materials
under Section 101 of the Patent Act, This provided new
opportunities and possibilities for plant breeders and
seed companies to protect their products.
3 See .EM. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl., /tic.,
534 U& 124,127 (2001).
Monsanto currently holds, 647 plant biotech patents, more than any
ether biotech company, and has a 29,.82 percent share of all biotech industry
research and development."
j
Monsanto currently holds, 647 plant biotech patents, more than any
ether biotech company, and has a 29,.82 percent share of all biotech industry
research and development."
MY/
tal!
All A
lal 44/111,�!
14/1/11/1
J) I t-, N 11 A "Ir N
-4
rn
The proliferation of Moinsanto"s biotech (I e r M o o's a r, e
f,"'n et-,/,ff, t s f r, ev,,- s a ir-,,/ o oir"'." e r,
crops within U.Si. agriculture has impacted I
tens of thousands of farmers, as contami-
nation of non -biotech crops with genetically e clh
yt,"I"'I'll, a,,,,,- o!,,,,,///J.1
..... . . . ... .... .
engineered traits has affected nearly every a r, ; tw -
L,
major, commercial crop, in the United States.
One needs only to look at the extensive coin-
tamination of our traditional seed supply (Aee box SourceA of Contamination)
or the S,tarLink corn fiasco (Aee box Biological Pollution) to see just how
widespread contamination has become. The U.S. agricultural economy has
suffered as a whole from the disappearance of foreign markets due to genetic
contamination of conventional export crops.
The American Farm Bureau estimates that farmers have lost $3010 million
pier year due, to, European markets, refusing to take genetically engineered corn
from the U.S." Trade officials, at the U.S. State Department believe the U.S. could
lose as much as $,4 billion annually in agricultural exports to the European
Union due to the recent enactment of labeling and traceability requirements,
by the E,U." In some parts of this country and Canada, conventional and organic
farmers alike have lost premium markets as they have been foirced to sell
contaminated crops into the genetically engineered crop stream.
Crop contamination is a serious problem that, so, far, Monsanto has
only been using to its advantage.
For farmers, sourcing seed that has not
been contaminated by genetically engineered
traits for cultivation has become increasingly
difficult. Even certified seed will most often
have some genetically engineered (GE)
content. In Canada, a study conducted by
researchers at the University of Manitoba,
testing 33 samples of certified canola seed
stock found that 32 of them were contaminated.'
Similarly, in the United States, the Union of
Concerned Scientists tested traditional seed
stocks of corn, soy, and canola, and found at
least 50 percent of the corn, 50 percent of
the soy, and 83 percent of the canola to be
contaminated with genetically engineered
content!
Seed source contamination has become so
common that some large seed dealers are not
willing to certify their non-genetically engi-
neered varieties as free of GE content. A letter
signed by Jerry Armstrong, vice president of
Pioneer Hi-Bred, states the following, "Pioneer
Hi-Bred International, Inc. validates that the
following soybean products were developed
using traditional plant breeding without the
use of molecular genetic modification tech-
niques ... However, grain traits can be mingled
mechanically in the grain handling process or
genetically in the course of pollination.
Thus 100% purity, either in genetic make-up
or in the absence of foreign material content
is currently not achievable for any agricultural
product, including soybean seed."
For those farmers who do find and plant seed
free of genetic contamination, the crop can
still become tainted by harvest time when
seed is spilled or blown from passing trucks,
or is carried onto the farm by animals and
birds. Additionally, farmers will often rent or
share expensive equipment like combines,
which frequently contain seeds left over from
a previous harvest. Farmers who save their
seeds have experienced contamination when
they bring their non-genetically engineered
seed to the local seed cleaner or cotton gin,
and it is inadvertently mixed with another
farmer's engineered seeds. With, all these
sources of contamination, it is no wonder that
so many farmers are finding their fields tainted
with patented genetically engineered traits.
1 Friesen, Lyle, et. al., Evidence of Contarninotion of
Pedigreed Conola (Brassica nopus) ,feedlots in Western
Canada with Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistance
Traits, AGRONOMY JOURNAL 95,1342-1347 (2003),
2 Mellon, Margaret and J. Rissler, Gone to Seed: Trans epic
Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, Union of
Concerned Scientists, (February 2•, 2004), available at
http://www.ucsusa.org/food—and—environment/biotec
hnology/page,cfrn?pagelD=1315,
ij,
ms/
101/1
/ 01
J%// AN
A//,31/6 I K//
01 ge-,
1'r
J ta
Pf
ON
Thus 100% purity, either in genetic make-up
or in the absence of foreign material content
is currently not achievable for any agricultural
product, including soybean seed."
For those farmers who do find and plant seed
free of genetic contamination, the crop can
still become tainted by harvest time when
seed is spilled or blown from passing trucks,
or is carried onto the farm by animals and
birds. Additionally, farmers will often rent or
share expensive equipment like combines,
which frequently contain seeds left over from
a previous harvest. Farmers who save their
seeds have experienced contamination when
they bring their non-genetically engineered
seed to the local seed cleaner or cotton gin,
and it is inadvertently mixed with another
farmer's engineered seeds. With, all these
sources of contamination, it is no wonder that
so many farmers are finding their fields tainted
with patented genetically engineered traits.
1 Friesen, Lyle, et. al., Evidence of Contarninotion of
Pedigreed Conola (Brassica nopus) ,feedlots in Western
Canada with Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistance
Traits, AGRONOMY JOURNAL 95,1342-1347 (2003),
2 Mellon, Margaret and J. Rissler, Gone to Seed: Trans epic
Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, Union of
Concerned Scientists, (February 2•, 2004), available at
http://www.ucsusa.org/food—and—environment/biotec
hnology/page,cfrn?pagelD=1315,
ij,
ms/
101/1
/ 01
J%// AN
A//,31/6 I K//
01 ge-,
1'r
J ta
®RION,
gagg
rVll�' r 1 4/1� ii i� t'
WE
Monsanto's Technology Agreement
Hits Farmers Hard
MONSANTO'S TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT requires farmers to give up their
time-honored practice of saving seed, a crucial practice upon which the
expansion of the germplasm base in modern agriculture depends. Through
experimentation and natural selection of new plant varieties, farmers have
helped to prevent genetic erosion by ensuring a diverse genetic pool from
which other farmers and plant breeders can select. The commercial use of
patented, genetically engineered seeds has dramatically altered this historic
role of farmers.
In addition to signing the technology agreement, farmers are respon-
sible for following the strictures and procedures laid out in the contract's sup-
plementarY 3,1-page publication, Monsanto's Technology Use Guide. Between
these two documents, specific conditions subject farmers to invasions of privacy
and property that have led to an undetermined number of patent infringement
allegations. Certain provisions transfer liabilities associated with Monsanto's
patented technology, including market burdens and contamination events,
directly to the farmer.
When they sign Monsanto's technology agreement, farmers, consent
to significant invasions of their private property and personal records. The
agreement allows Monsanto to access records concerning farmers,' activities
held by a number of third parties, such as the U.S. government. In particular, the
agreement allows Monsanto to review USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) crop
reporting information on any land farmed by the grower. Access to the FSA
form helps Monsanto to determine how many bags of seed a farmer was sold and
how many acres of a particular crop were planted. This data can also be used to
identify adjacent fields owned by neighboring growers—who may themselves be
potential targets of Monsanto's investigations—without their consent.
Additionally, the technology agree
-
allov,,,Vs ment contains a broad provision giving
,"IiTtLtally
acces.,)� 9 Monsanto access to virtually any documents
J as part of a farmer investigation. Specifically,
i��-�4,"tg a fanii&r�
D,
HI t
E S igatk, ii,, the agreement reads; "To allow Monsanto
to examine and copy any records and
CD receipts that could b�e relevant to Grower's
performance of this Agreement'717 (emphaALA added). The breadth of this
-provision allows the company to obtain documents that are not necessarily
directly related to a farmer's seed or chemical purchase, permitting Monsanto
to assess a grower's financial state.
The Technology Use Guide also has provisions that allow for property
investigations. For example, the following provision is directly aimed at cotton
farmers:
The technology agreement also includes an enforcement mechanism
for ensuring that farmers comply with Insect Resistant Management plans,
also known as refuges, required by the Environmental Protection Agency
settled in 1998, was a national class action
representing all farmers who planted t cotton
in 1996. In 1999, farmers, agaiin suffered from
poor Bt cotton crops and three cases were filed
against Monsanto. All settled out of court.
when growing genetically engineered Bt crops. This mechanism provides
Monsanto or its approved agent with an additional basis on which to legally
enter a farmer's field.► 9
. . . . .. . . .
AJ"',,,,,I
A v IDI (
N Jk`l J, L
G E] N E
Monsanto's Technology Use Guide recognizes that genetically engineered
crops are, by nature, transportable from a user's farm onto another farm by
pollen flow or through seed movement via animals or equipment: "Since,
corn is a naturally cross-pollinated crop, a minimal amount of pollen movement
(some of which can carry genetically improved traits) between neighboring
22
fields is a well known and normal occurrence in corn seed or grain production."
Such pollen flow and seed movement presents a direct economic threat to
farmers growing non-genetically engineered crops. Nonetheless, the
Technology Use Guide implicitly provides that growers using genetically
engineered seeds are under no obligation to prevent the spread of patented
genetic traits to other neighboring farms. The Technology Use Guide states
that growers of non-genetically engineered crops that certify their crops for
specific markets "...assume the responsibility and receive the benefit for
ensuring that their crop meets...specificatio-ns for purity."21
I'
/ . . . . . . . .
IL,
A N F Nl
Once farmers sign a technology agreement, they are bound to Monsanto I s
oversight. An updated agreement is mailed to farmers, each year, and farmers
that continue to use Monsanto's technology after receipt of any new terms are
automatically agreeing to be bound by the new terms. 14 Farmers who discontinue
A A I +i %_U I I
Ultit use U f U11 ClIt + U 0 Y
engineered seed face patent infringe-
ment allegations in the event that
some of that seed from the previous
year sprouts "volunteers" in fields
converted to conventional varieties.
By growing these volunteers and har-
vesting them along with the rest of
their crop, farmers could be considered
to be "using" Monsanto technology,
despite not having purchased Monsanto
seed that year. This inadvertent use,
in combination with receiving a new
technology agreement from Monsanto,
could constitute tacit acceptance of
any new terms outlined in the agreement, thereby exposing the farmer to
patent infringement prosecution.
"'I . . . . .... . . .
. . ... . .. . . . .
N N L) I N
The Technology Agreement exposes the seed-purchasing farmer to a huge
financial liability. Should the farmer ultimately be found legally responsible for
breaching the terms of the technology agreement, bankrup�tcy is not an
uncommon outcome." The agreement provides that if a grower saves, uses, sells
or acquires seed for planting in violation
C',
o�f the agreement, the grower is, liable to B a rit,,,,� c y 1) Y ir a eir s
Monsanto for patent infringement. This i
liability can also lead to the grower paying V, i, b y o a,�, '',� t o,,
Monsanto and its licensed technology
p�rovider(s) for their attorneys' fees and costs of enforcing the agreement.2'
Adding to these costs, Monsanto's technology agreement also places
farmers at an additional disadvantage by requiring that the sole and exclusive
jurisdiction and venue for all disputes (except those involving cotton) go to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri or the Circuit
Court of the County of St. Louis"—both in Monsanto's hometown. Farmers,
from outside Missouri who are sued must not only battle the legal team of a big
corporation but must also find a lawyer outside their home state.
�i �ng �,Ri, e r i Farmers
ProseCLI �A c a ni,
Monsanto`s Investigations,
Coerced Settlements &Lawsuits
I,' NV li S 1 o ti is
breaking the rules, and will follow up on other leads as they develop.""' In a
2,0,04 publication, Monsanto claimed that, "Nearly boo new seed piracy matters
were opened in2,003. 1134
More recently, in an Omaha World-Herald article from November
2,004, it is mentioned that Monsanto will investigate Soo farmers this year,
"as it does every year ."31 Drawing from these sources, it is reasonable to speculate
that the number of farmers who have been investigated reaches into the
thousands. CFS has spoken to several farmers who have confirmed
Monsanto's, private investigators arrive unexpectedly on far mers'land and take
samples from fields, often without permission, a practice that has instigated
repeated trespassing accusations. "They say they don't trespass—that's bull,"
one individual told CFS, explaining that investigators in his town posed as
land mappers in order to take pictures in farmers' fields and driveways . 37
Another farmer concurred, sharing that it "wasn't uncommon to see investi-
gators taking pictures in his neighbors' fields."'�' In 1199, 7, Monsanto attempted
to alleviate farmers' concerns about these visits by removing from the 1996
Roundup Ready Soybean Grower Agreement a field-inspection provision
allowing the company to access customers' fields. As this report will show,
the removal of this clause did not influence Monsanto's conduct.
Anecdotal evidence shows that investigators spend anywhere from a
few hours to a few weeks collecting samples, and other data from targeted
f-7-ilr-ners' Farmers often feel like criminals even before accusations are
made, as investigators frequently solicit local police officers to escort them
onto farmers'
The most invasive investigation known to CFS, involves a Mississippi
farmer who operates a farm supply business. Mitchell Scruggs, first realized
Monsanto was targeting him when he noticed investigators staked out
around the outside of his store. Scruggs, says his family could not leave their
house, which shared space with his store,
t , e s r t o
PL,.;,,S_d by K a without feeling as though they were
i, feel 1` eve-,,� being watched by the nearby surveillance
) fter
b e f r, e a c c l s a C i o wro� cameras. The company went so far as, to
aiir-e acle, purchase an empty lot across the street to
In its prosecution of farmers, Mon�santo has
also turned to multibillion dollar, 11 universally
recognized" law firms. in Mitchell Scruggs r
case—one of the only cases where there are
almost as many defense attorneys on record
as attorneys for Monsanto—Monsanto
retained the law firm of Arnold & Porter.'
Litigation experience with biotechnology
patent cases is an exceptional strength among
the 700 lawyers on this firm's staff. Homan
McFaIrling and Kem Ralph are two farmers,
who have fought back hard against Monsanto,,
and when both of their cases went on appeal
to the Federal Circuit, Monsanto retained
former U'. S. Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman
of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, to prosecute
the two farmers.'
1 Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs, 249 F. Su pp, 2d 746, 750
(N.D. Miss. 2001).
2 Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F. 3d 1291,198-1299
(Fed. Cir. 2002), Oct. 16, 2002,
FP,,ILc)-r, PAR.-rKIDGE. KOHNKE F-3 CLEMEN-FS, L. C,
ATTORj-4KY±-. A\T LAW
01500 CNKROY CE:P4rFRW
IIC)C> F-OYORAS STREMT
NI-W OFRf_r_ANn, LC>UISIANA 70(e-a-3000
WRITER'S DMIECT TE:L1EPHCDr4r- (SC,� A) SVOO-A3C>C>V WMTr.n',% rz]Rr-CT
01^L HUMOItR FACM�MILIE t M M93,20-631C>C> CIA1. WAX NUMPF-FR
(504) 599-8184 Exnail: iecC2�,fPkccom (5014) 50-8 153
November 6, 2002
Gary Rinehart
Posit Office Box 193
Eagleville, MO 64442
Dear Mr. Rinehart:
Ibis law firm represents Monsanto Company in the protection of its patent rights in
Roundup Ready's soybean seed. Monsanto has received information that You may have planted
saved Roundup Ready0l soybeans, in the 2002 growing season. The planting of saved Roundup
Ready s soybeans constitutes an infringement of the patents, including U. S. Patent No.
5,352,605, that Monsanto holds on Roundup Ready <ID genetic crop seed traits.
In order to resolve these serious allegations, I need the following information to be sent to
me:
1) A full and complete copy of your Farm Service Agency records, for
the 2002 growing season, specifically including FSA Form 578
Farm and rract Detail Summary, and the accompanying aerial
maps -
2) A copy of all seed purchase receipts for soybean seed that you
purchased for planting in the 2002 growing season; and
3) A copy of all herbicide purchase receipts for each herbicide that you
purchased for application to your 2002 soybean crop.
By this letter, Monsanto also requests your consent to enter your 2002 soybean fields to
inspect and collect samples of the soybean crops that you produced in those fields, I understand
that gathering the information requested can be time• consuming, therefore, I have attached an
Authorization to this letter for your execution which would allow a representative of Monsanto to
collect records and send you copies of what is collected. In any event, I would ask that you either
provide the requested information yourself, or execute the attached consent form, and return it to
roe within five (5) days of your receipt of this letter.
RN,
IN-
Sometimes Monsanto's investigations involve entrapment. In July
1998, a man showed up at Illinois farmer Eugene Stratemeyer I s farm and
asked to buy some soybean seeds. Given that it was too late in the season to
start a crop, the man explained that he wanted to grow the soybeans for erosion
control. Straterneyer agreed to do him this favor, charging the man only
enough to cover the cost of cleaning and bagging the seed. As it turned out,
Monsanto had hired this individual to purchase the seeds from Stratemeyer
41
and soon after filed a lawsuit against Stratemeyer in his local court.
Monsanto's investigators have used even more extreme tactics to
deceive. In an effort to gain local confidence, one investigator reportedly
attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. This individual, who befriended
C
�i s, a ii", i "IC, o S I 'I v, e s i g a t o r, s members of the therapy group, was soon
I<li,�",io..,,,,,(i� ii to eerr ,, p � oy� recognized as one of the investigators
elab� Ile decepflo�ns to taking pictures of farmers in their fields
iii is f a i t " e r, s r, s t. and knocking on these same fanners,
door's with news that they were under
41
investigation for saving patente�d seed.
Given the aggressive nature of these pursuits, it is not surprising that
Monsanto has been accused of breaking and entering. One farmer is "convinced"
investigators broke into his office after finding evidence that someone had
tampered with papers on his desk, closed his blinds, and left seed purchasing
tickets in his copy machine. He also witnessed investigators hiding behind
gravestones in a nearby cemetery videotaping workers in his fields .41'
Not only are these investigations overly intrusive, they often produce
erroneous or fabricated evidence. When the Roush family received
Monsanto's test results for samples taken from their fields in 1999, they
found hand-drawn maps of fields in which the company claimed to have sampled
for Roundup Ready soybeans. There was, however, one major flaw to this claim:
In 19,99, one field the company noted as having Roundup Ready soybeans was
in fact planted with corn grown under contract for Weaver Popcorn
Company. "Popcorn and soybeans look nothing alike," Troy Roush explained.
49
"'There is no way they were in that field. "
The Roushes' experience is not unique. Monsanto told Arkansas
farmer Ray Dawson that it spent over $250,000 on hiring Pinkerton investi-
gators to inspect his property for three to four weeks. The company apparently
fired these investigators,, as well as the attorneys that initially had been hired
to handle the case, because they could not find proof of patent infringement.
The second group of investigators hired by Monsanto spent two days conducting
the same inspection, only this time they claimed to have found sufficient evidence
of infringement.10
Following investigations, Monsanto s,aid 11,%/`Ior,sa� ito
usually sends threatening letters via tcfld spe�'',it $250,000
certified mail to farmers suspected of fit"rP,g E)e'fi,Dt"e
planting or selling saved patented seed. The C �"'I I r,i g c p e d d
letter typically requests that the farmer pay
a specified sum of money to avoid legal
proceedings,. Under financial duress, many farmers who have been accused of
patent infringement based on insubstantial evidence have decided to settle
out of court rather than face an expensive and lengthy lawsuit.
Given the aggressive nature of the I r-I r� �,Dce� '",i�'t r-t',ray �y fi"
letters farmers receive announcing ar,e c��:,,)&r,ced II [0 Sa `nti,,lir"�Ig OU`[,�
om Monsanto's allegations, it is likely many o,f 1)y Moi s a ii t o's ,t I,ot %r, -
farmers have been harassed or intimidated a r- it 't a c fl
into settling out of court, innocent or not,
in order to avoid paying substantial attorney fees. It has been reported that
Monsanto's investigators and attorneys vaunt their courtroom success as a
way to intimidate farmers into settling before the company engages in legal
proceedings."' The most common threat farmers reported hearing was that
Monsanto would "tie them up in court for years"' if they chose not to settle. Gary
Rinehart, the man investigators mistakenly pursued, recalls Monsanto's
arrogant approach to farmers: "When they [investigators] came up here, they
were bragging to other farmers about all of the farmers they had put out of
business."12
In addition to sending threatening letters to farmers, Monsanto also
distributes letters listing the names of farmers prohibited from purchasing its
products to thousands of seed dealers each year. These letters, often pressure
farmers who wish to retain this purchasing right into settling out of court,
regardless of the legitimacy of the company's investigation. "It's easier to give
in to them than it is to fight them," said one farmer who is still restricted
from using Monsanto's products as a result of challenging the company's
53
claims in court.
Many of these settlements with Monsanto, it has been reported, contain
strict provisions that afford Monsanto the right to test the farmer's crops for
a set period of time, typically five years. These provisions also require farmers,
1111 A/I
I II a r 0 c a i i r w. s ii t 1ii a s s e
w i t
dollaJ rs da,`,'T'�Iages s�,r
2 0"
to present documents within 24 hours of
Monsanto's request, purchase a specific
quantity of the company's products, and dis-
close names of other people who have saved
the company's seeds. The settlements are,
usually confidential.
In iggg, The Wes hington PoAt reported that nearly half of the company's
525 investigations had been settled. 14 While this is the only publicly available
source describing (pre-legal action) settlements resulting from farmer investi-
gatio�ns, Monsanto claims, that since 000, it has settled for millions of dollars
in total damages." Due to the confidential nature of these settlements, exact
amounts farmers agree to pay Monsanto are not available; nevertheless, we do
know that one farmer, Carlyle Price of North Carolina, settled for $:L.5, million."
The company says it is not looking to profit from these settlements
and claims the settlements go toward scholarships and other educational
initiatives. A Monsanto spokesman, Brian Hurley, reported that any money
the company wins is donated to the American Farm Bureau to pay for schol-
ars,hip,s, but evidence shows that the company directs only $IL5o,000 per year
to the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture in the form of
scholarships .17 It is unknown where the remaining millions are directed.
Some farmers agree to sign a settlement obligating them to purchase
Monsanto's products because the offered deal provides for a much smaller
settlement fine. Clearly, this provision exemplifies Monsanto's goal of binding
farmers, to its genetically engineered seeds and contracts. However, some
farmers refuse to settle and subject themselves to paying both attorney fees
and larger settlements in order to avoid making a commitment to Monsanto."
Those not willing to acquiesce to Monsanto's demands enter the
most aggressive stage of these pursuits --the lawsuit.
",/,':',/; r�, J, ji, - S
As part of a multiyear research project, CFS has collected and analyzed the
numerous lawsuits Monsanto has filed against American farmers. What
follows is a summary of specific data compiled regarding these lawsuits.
(See Appendix A: Lawsuits Filed Against American Farmers by Monsanto, for
detailed information regarding these lawsuits).19
0 1`,,Juntn�riber of Far niet,s,,,�F�nr,�4:1 Sued
1. Status, of Lawsuits Filed Against U.S. Farmers
rmm Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits, balls upon: purported violations of
its technology agreement and its patents, on genetically engineered
seed technology."'
These cases involve 147farmers and 39 small busin�esses/farm companies."
2. Number of Active Lawsuits
s of December 2004,
A 19 of the 90 cases filed' by Monsanto against
farmers are on-going.
I Lawsuits Filed by Geographic Location
fs Monsanto has sued farmers and small businesses/farm companies residing
in 25 different states.
Monsanto's actions against American farmers have affected farmers nation-
wide. However, 46 of the lawsuits have been filed in Monsanto's hometown
jur,isdiction of St., Louis, M0.12 The forum selection clause contained in Monsanto's
technology agreement gives Monsanto this home field advantage.
olma Of the 46 cases filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, only two defendants
were successfully able to remove their case to another jurisdiction."
4. Lawsuits Filed by Yeag
IWOMM
$5,8oi.00 in costs and advanced expenses."
Farmers issued monetary judgments are typically also issued permanent
injunctions. Farmers with injunctions are forbidden from buying and/or
selling Monsanto's products.
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLMT 1
EASTERNI)ISTRICTOFMISSOM
EASTERN I)PITSION
MONSAN-rO COMPANY,
PL-IiAtiff"
VS.
ILAY F. DAWSON, SR. =d
PAY DAWSON FAWAS PARTNBRSHIP
De&ndants.
1636540
MONSANTO, COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
V.
KEM RALPH, fNDIVIDUALLY,
AND RALPH BROTHERS,
FARMS,
Defendants.
Case o: 4:OOCV135RWS
PILF 0
C/A
OCT 2 '5 2002
ST. LOUIS
ORDE
Plaintiff, Monsanto Company has filed a Motion To Conduct Limited Discovery
pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendants have
no objection, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:
I As soon as is practical after Defendants harvesting operations (but no later than
Friday, November 1, 2002) Monsanto may obtain samples of plant tissue, crop,
residue, soil samples or seed samples from each field fanned by or on behalf of
Defendants during the 2002 growing season as well as all harvested soybean and
cotton seed harvested from their 2002 crop which is within the possession or
control of Defendants as of the date of this Order;
2, Defendants shall identify the location of all fields where they or anyone acting
under their direction or control planted cotton and soybean crops in 2002, identify
all facilities where soybean and cotton seed harvested from their 2002 crops has
been stored, accompany sampling crews to identify such fields and facilities, and
verify these locations in writing-, A
15.x6eure A 400.1tki7- 14� fr-CkAnt got
3. Dcfendants shall pre4w,* their complete FSA records for each farm on which they
or anyone acting under their direction or control planted soybean and cotton
during the 2002 growing season;
4. Defendants are prohibited from tilling their fields or otherwise permitting to the
destruction of plant material and residue needed for sampling and testing and
Defendants shall take no actions which would impede the sampling crews entry
onto land and collection of plant tissue, crop residue, soil samples or seed samples
from any such field.
Monsanto shall make available a witness who will testify as to the location of
sampling performed and infon-nation relating to Defendant's involvement in farming the
acreage sampled in September 2001 at a date convenient to the parties.
DATED this 0�-55�%ay of 2002. SO OR.DERED:
JU ge
Monsanto, a multi-billion dollar company, is pressing cases against farmers
who operate on a comparatively thin profit margin and, thus, have far fewer
17
legal resources. Many farmers cannot afford legal representation and must
fight Monsanto alone if sued by the company. Farmers who are sued by
Monsanto and cannot afford legal representation face even higher expenses if
they signed a technology agreement since they are forced to answer a complaint
in the federal court in St. Louis, regardless of where their farm is located.
ol Nine defendants do not have attorneys of record listed, three are on record
as repiresenting themselves (Pro Se) and five had partial representation
throughout the course of their lawsuit.,
-s S hi 2re The *r Stoto '
F'armeto,,,
51'
Despite the variety of circumstances, under which these lawsuits are
filed, Monsanto approaches each case with relentless force. No one can
explain the extreme imbalance of power and legal support, as well as the
unjust nature of some of the company's claims, better than the farmers
involved." Although we do not know the details of the out-of-court settlements
that have taken, and are still taking, place, we can look to farmers Who have been
sued to determine just who is being targeted with these aggressive lawsuits. At a
time when Monsanto is touting its concern for American farmers, many of
them are busy telling a very different story—to a judge.
....... . /
I �
T ` Ir
I'll,
The most famous of all the Monsanto
patent infringement cases involves
Canadian canola f armer Percy
Schmeise r. 71 Monsanto's genetically
engineered canola was found on
Schmeiser's land, but it is undisputed
Z
o
t . . .. . � 1,,/,: o wt ,,r,,.,, a p i e c e f M o t 11 e ir
g
4 L y
N a,t i,,1,,,j,, il" e � . ... . .... .. ..... ..
e if a '0 LJ d
that he neither purchased nor planted the company's seed. For seven years
Schmeiser fought to prove that the seed arrived on his land through genetic
drift or from trucks carrying seed to grain elevators. Unfortunately, the lower
courts, were not concerned as to how the seed wound up on the land, only that
Schmeiser knew he possessed Monsanto's intellectual property and had not
paid for it.74 As Schmelser's attorney Terry Zakres,ki, explained-, "Monsanto,
has a problem. It's trying to own a piece of Mother Nature that naturally
spreads itself around." Even the vice president for Monsanto Canada, Ray
Mowling, concurs.- "[Monsanto] acknowledges that some cross - pollination
occurs, and acknowledges the awkwardness of' prosecuting farmers who may
be inadvertently growing Monsanto seed through cross - pollination or via
innocent trades with patent-violating neighbors. "71
The Supreme Court of Canada heard Schmeiser's, appeal of the lower
courts' decisions, on January 2,o, 2,004, and on May .2i, goo 4 publicly announced
its decision. Schmeiser was found guilty of patent infringement yet not
liable to pay Monsanto any damages. 77
We can assume that Schmeiser is just one of many farmers who has
been targeted for possessing a technology he neither bought nor planted.
VVIL11 PUIPZ;111 11U111 6C_11UL1k_011Y
engineered crops has become a serious prob-
lem in North America. Measures taken to pre-
vent contamination, such as buffer zones,
have proven ineffective, as the distances rec-
ommended for segregation are inadequate.,
The most recent indication that genetically
engineered organisms have serious potential
for contamination comes from a study conl-
ducted by the EPA that found pollen from
genetically engineered bentgrass traveled at
least 13 miles from the field in which it was
planted.' Similarly, a 2003 British study found
that genetically engineered oilseed rape cross-
pollinated with non-engineered oilseed rape
more than 16 miles away. While contamina-
tion can occur in virtually any crop, the most
serious problems to date have been with corn
and canola, the two main genetically engi-
neered open-pollinated food crops cultivated
in North America.
In the eight or nine years, that canola varieties
genetically engineered to be resistant to her-
bicides have been planted in Canada, they
have cross - pollinated to such an extent that
canlola plants resistant to three or more herbi-
cides are not uncolmmonl. These unwanted,
herbicide-resistant canola plants are showing
up in fields planted with other crops and are
causing a serious weed problem.
Perhaps the most salient example of genetic
contamination involves the case of Starl-ink, a
variety of corn never approved for hurnan
consumptio ommercialized in
11OU UU-->Z)-PU11111C1U::U LU bUU11 C111 tALtIlL L11dL
although only I percent of Iowa cornfields, were
sown with Starl-ink, harvests from half the
state's fields showed at least a trace of con-
4
tamination. In the fall of 2000, the FDA was
forced to, recall 300 corn products from U.S.
supermarkets due to StarLink contamination.
Despite attempts to eradicate all traces of
Starl-ink, it has continued to show up in U.S.
cornfields, and foreign corn markets have
been lost year after year. Recently, a group of
farmers, was awarded a:! $110 million settlement
for the loss of foreign markets due to Starl-ink
contamination., 5
Even Monsanto admits that pollen-flow is
inevitable. In its 2005 Technology Agreement,
Monsanto writes: "Since corn is a naturally
cross-pollinated crop, a minimal amount of
pollen movement... between neighboring fields
is well known and is a normal occurrence in
corn seed or grain production."' Clearly,
contamination of non-genetically engineered
varieties by pollen from engineered crops is
virtually unavoidable in North America today,
I Watrud L.S., E.H. Lee, A. Fairbrother, C. Burdick, J, R.
Reichman, M. Bollman, M, Storm, G. King, P.K. Van de
Water, Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated
gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass
with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proc Naitl Acad Sci U S A.
Oct 5, 2004,1011(40):14533-8
2 Squire, G,, G. Begg and M, Askew, The potential for
oilseed rape feral (volunteer) weeds to cause impurities
in later oilseed rape crops, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (August 2003),
available at http://www,defra.gov.uk/environment/ m/
research/pdf/epg_rg0114,pdf.
3 Kanina Holmes, Canadian Organic Farmers Sue
Monsanto on GM Crops, REUTERS, (January 11, 2002).
4 Organic crop certifiers decry transgenic contamination,
CROPCHOICE, (May 1, 2002), available at http: //www,
cropchoice.com /leadstryal' a.html?recid =310.
5 Paul Elias, Biotech firms pay $110 million to settle StarLink
lawsuit, ASSOCIATED PRESS, (February 7, 2003),
available at http: //ipm.osu.edu/trans/023-071.htm.
6 Con onto Co., 2005 Technology Use Guide, at 17.
A FZ 1 4 . . . ... ..... Fi',
. .... ... D
A N f "), "'11/1"" 0 N15"I", A P"111/11111, [" 11""')
In a similar story, the Thomason famil
;r
was tied up in court for years, for unknowingly VV
pos,sessing Monsanto's Bt cotton after they were
sold the seeds in a plain br own bag. The seed deal- Reaa/;,"',/,,V
er neither told the Thomasons that the variety of
seed was patented nor asked to have a technology
agreement signed. The Tho�masons were sued for
o N r
V
L 29
g rllgj�lom a
(011"It'l 1, I)F2 F/2
....................
TO;TAL Crop Acres Planned! for 1998: (All Varieties)
Soybeans L��fcl �0 Corn L—J--J, Laclj- Cotton
I I I I I 1 1-11 1 1 1 1 1 -AffARAEUZ0A0P--L��L-J---J---J
Business Name BOX 478
1' dNI 1, J-L L3 7 15 1& 10 1� I I I
I I I L-L-J
Area Code P'hone city State
I ac owl edge that I have read and understand the terms and conditions of this
tere
Siq i ure mus match cust4er name listed above.
rem—
1,
Upon completion and submission of this page, you will be mailed a Technology Card with your name and individual Technology ID number. This
card should be presented when purchasing additional MONSANTO gene technologies, and for redeem,ing benefits offered under the Technology
Value Package. %
0 Please send me additional cards.
... . . .....
PROP--
,kgreemeq II/ -d"
l e
�d a ers,'-'—"/
0'�S'�
inv,ol,l,ve/,/��'S'LC'h,/,/,f,o,r,ger,i"e",s,�l,
Actittal Si'griaturie
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alm
It was not until U.Si. Marshall
Oine farmer ii never saw an agreiement settled Monsanto f.
upwards of $ He recounted that the company told him, "We own
you—we wn ary a d that buys � + �d Ready products." This farmer
asserts that he was never told that he could not save his seed, only that he
was not allowed to sell it to others.
46
m
Ii
RAI,
Preventing the Prosecution of
America r s, Farmers
�l ���fJ f
RIZIONSUM
Amend the Patent Act so that Sexually Reproducing Plants Are Not
Patentable Subject Matter and Amend the Plant Variety Protection Act
(PVPA) to E,xc�luide Such Plants from Protection u�nder the PVPA.
the plant protections for genetically engineered crops.
The Patent Act and the PV PA are federal legislation, so amending
them to remove protection for genetically engineered varieties would
require action by Congress.
Advat7tages., The advantage for farmers of this option is that it would eliminate
all legislative bases for their prosecution by Monsanto or other biotech s,eed
companies for patent infringement or P,VPA violation."
Disadvantages,, The disadvantages of this approach are practical. Given the
lobbying power of the biotechnology industry it is extremely unlikely that
Congress would take such action in the foreseeable future.
■ Make the Plant Variety Protection Act the Exclusive Means of Securing
_ Intellectual Property Protection Over Sexually Reproducing Plants.
A less dramatic legislative option than stripping genetically engineered
seeds from all plant protection would be for Congress to amend the Patent
� Act to exclude sexually reproducing plants including genetically engineered II
SON
PON seeds, as patentable subject matter, but to continue to allow engineered
AIR-
plants protection under the PVPA. This would provide the biotech companies �
with a continued monopoly on the sale of these crop varieties but under the
PVPA an exemption would allow farmers to save genetically engineered seeds �
ME
for replanting.
I
Advantages: This option requires Congress to amend just one statute, the Patent
Act, rather than both the Patent Act and the PVPA as required for the first
option, meaning one less legislative hurdle. As noted, this option would
result in farmers being able to save and replant engineered seed without fear
of prosecution.
Disadvantages: This amending of the Patent Act would not free farmers from
enforcement of and prosecution under, the PVPA. This might include prose-
cution even if protected seed varieties inadvertently pollute their crop.
Additionally, even though less controversial than stripping genetically engineered
seeds of all intellectual property protection, Congress, under pressure from
a the biotech industry, may well be reluctant to amend the Patent Act to favor
a farmer's right to save seed over the profit interest of the biotech industry.
R1
t
in Amend the Patent Act so that Seed Saving and/or Inadvertent Possession,
Use or Sale of Genetically Engineered Seeds is Not Considered Infringement.
Section 2,71 of the Patent Act circumscribes what constitutes infringement of
a patent. This, can include exemptions from the usual proscription of possession,
use and sale of a patented invention.100 This policy option would involve
amending section 2,71 so as to limit the scope of infringement of patents on
a genetically engineered seed. Specifically, this would involve excluding the
saving of engineered seed, and/or the inadvertent possession, use or sale of
such seed from the scope of infringement of these patentl
Language in a recent Federal court decision on the patenting of a
chemical compound gives some support to this policy option. In a concurring
opinion in this decision, SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apo ex Corp., 365 F- 3d
13o6 (Fed. Ci
Legislate to Prevent Monsanto's Seed Contracts from Shifting Liability Ont
the Farmer. i
a Ila a a a a A a a
40
W M
is a 40
is a A
W do
40 40
W lisp W W W W W
M!il
di
UP
do W .6
D 0
isadvantages.,- This legislation, whether passed at the federal or state level,
does, not limit the intellectual property protections of Monsanto, which could
still prolsecute farmers for saving seed and for inadvertently having the
patented seed on their property.
n A dopit Existing State Models for Controlling the Intrusive and Aggress*ive
As discussed in this report, numerous farmers have been the subject of
harassment and overzealous investigations by Monsanto. States can act to
curb such behavior and ensure that farmers accused of infringing patents
have some equitable recourse. Two states—North Diakota and Indiana—
have passed legislation to protect farmers from Monsanto's, aggressive legal
pursuits. Most significantly, the North Dakota legislation prevents plant
patent holders from entering and taking crops from a farmer's land without
meeting a number of conditions. In addition, the farmer may accompany the
patent holder as samples are taken, and may also request the presence of the
state seed commissioner.
In 2003, Indiana passed a bill that provides farmers protections similar
001 to those included in the North Dakota legislation. 114 Under this law, a seed
contract gives no rights to a seed supplier to enter a farmer's property to
take samples of crops grown from seeds or other plants growing on the
farmer's property unless a number of important conditions are met."' Moreover,
if a seed company receives a court order to access a farmer"s land to take
samples, the order must allow the farmer to have independent, matching or
split samples taken. Farmers can use this evidence to conduct their own
tests. "his would put a stop to the obvious o ne-sided nature of the evidence
presented in cases filed by Monsanto against farmers.
Advantages: As, demonstrated by the success in North Dakota and Indiana,
these bills can be attractive to state legislatures,. These laws do offer farmers
some protection against both the harassing and/or illegal methods of inves-
tigation by Monsanto, and the company's potential falsifying of test results.
rij Level the Couirtroom Playing Field By Negating Monsanto's
Foirium Selection Cla�use
Advantages: Laws such as Indiana's ensure that farmers being prosecuted are noR
required to defend themselves in and under the laws of another state. I
Disadvantages.-, These laws on forum do little to limit Monsanto I s patent an
intellectual property rights. Again, there is a risk that legislators may opt fo
limited laws such as theise rather than stringently regulate genetically eng]
nee re d crops and liability in their states.
Pass F!ederaill, State and Local Initiatives Instituting a Ban oir Moratoriumi or
I A*%
the Growing of Genetically Engineered Crops,
Pacer Service Center U.S. Party/Case Index
M me
Monsanto's 2005 Technology Use Guide I
http://www.monsantoi.com/monsanto"/``U�������s-a::g
content/stewardshi�p/`tug/`tug2005.pldf I
Farmers' lawyers that have defended the
most cases-.
r.
P
El
W1
T,
Monsanto Co., 2004 Annual Report, available at
www.monsanto,com/monsanto`/
layout/investor/financial/ nnual— report s.asp
Stewart Laidlaw, "Starlink Fallout Could Cost
Billions." Toronto Star, (January 9, 2001).
Charles Benbrook, "Genetically Engineered Crops
and Pesticide Use in the United States, The First
Nine Years," BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper
Number 7, October 2004.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
Factsheet "Genetically Modified Crops in the
United States," August 2004, p. 4; available at
http://pewa,gbio,tech.org/resources/factsheets/d
isplay.php3?FactsheetID-2
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, "Co-existence
in North American agriculture: can GM crops
be grown with conventional & organic crops,?"
PG Economics Ltd, (June 7, 2004); available at
www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/Coexistencereport
NAmericafinaIJune2004.pdf
In 2001, ETC Group reported that Monsanto
was responsible for seed technology for 91% of
the world's genetically engineered crops
("Ag Biotech Countdown: Vital Statistics and GM
Crops," Geno-Types at 1 (June 2002); available at
www.etcgroup,org/documents/biotech—count-
down-2002.pdf). Additionally, CFS compared
recent figures from ISAAA's statistics on world
biotech crop hectares (wwwisaaa.oirg/
kc/CBTNews/press—release/briefs30/es—b3O.pd
) and Monsanto's biotech crop acreage
(www,,monsanto.com/monsanto/content/
investor/financial/reports/2004/( 42004
Acreage.pdf) to confirm that Monsanto's control of
seed technology has stayed constant at approxi-
mately 90%.
7 Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest at 201 (2001).
See also Moeller, David, Farmers" Guide to G s at
8, RAFI-FLAG (November 2004),
8 Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest at 196,
(2001).
9 Troy Roush, phone interview with CFS
(August 28, 2003),
Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(October 10, 2003).
Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(October 2003).
-12 See Brief Amici Curiae of American Corn
Growers Association & National Farmers Union
in Support of the Petitioners, J.E.M. Ag Supply v.
Pioneer Hi-Bred, Int'l., 534 U.S., 124,122 S. Ct.
593,151 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2001), r'hrg denied, U.S.,
122 S. Ct. 1600 (2002), see also, Lara E. Ewens,
"Seed Wars: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property
and the Quest for High Yield Seeds," 23 B,.C, Int'l
& Comp, L. Rev. 285, 286 (2000).
13 Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest at 34-35
(2001)y
14 Gregory D. Graff & James Newcomb,
"Agricultural Biotechnology at the Crossroads,"
BioEcionomic Research Associates, 23-25
(2003).
15 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, "U.S,
vs. EU: An examination of the trade issues sur-
rounding genetically modified food," (August
2003), available at http://pewagbiotech.org/
resou rces/iss uebrief s/eu rope. pdf.
A ibid.
17 Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology/Stewardship
Agreement, para. 4, Grower Agrees.
18 Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology Use Guide, at 19.
ig Monsanto Co,, 2005 Technology /Stewardship
Agreemen at para. 6, Grower Understands;
see also Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology Use
Guide, at 19.
2.o Monsanto Co., Tech nologyStewa rdshi p
Agreement, para. 4, Grower Agrees
21. Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology Use Guide, at 15.
23 ibid,
24 Monsanto Co,, 2005 Technology /Stewardship
Agreement, para, 7, General Terms.
25 CFS is aware of eight cases against farmers that
have ended in bankruptcy (according to a search
done on the PACER database for bankruptcy
cases between 1997 & 2004 in which Monsanto
is listed as a party).
26 Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology/Stewardship
Agreement, para. 8, Monsanto's Remedies,
217 Moinsanto Co., 2005 Technology /Stewardship
Agreement.
:z8 See Peter Shinkle , "Monsanto Reaps Some
it
Anger with Hard Line on Reusing Seed, supra,
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (May 19, 2003). See also
Daniel Charles, Lords of the" Harve st at 115-117,
154,156 (2001). In discussing the history of
Pioneer Hi-Bred and its commitment to the best
interests of the farmer, Charles quotes Pioneer's
Tom Urban as saying, "Monsanto didn't under-
stand the seed business.. I'm sorry, they didn't
understand the seed business."
z9 Monsanto Co., Seed Piracy Update, (2003).
30 See Jill Sudduth, Where the Wild Wind Blows:
Genetically Altered Seed and Neighboring
Farmers, Duke L. & Tech, Rev. 0015 at para. 6
(2001). See also Rich Weiss, "Seeds of Discord:
Monsanto's Gene Police Raise Alarm on
Farmer's Rights, Rural Tradition," The Washington
Post at A6 (Feb. 3, 1999).
3-1 Monsanto Co., Monsanto Releases Seed Piracy
Case Settlement Details, press release (Sept. 29,
1998). This release reported 475 seed piracy
cases investigated by Monsanto nationwide,
generated from over 1,800 leads.
P Rich Weiss, 'Seeds of Discord.- Monsanto's Gene
Police Raise Alarm on Farmer's Rights, Rural
Tradition , ry The Washington Post at A6
(Feb. 3, 1999).
33 Monsanto Co,,, Seed Piracy Update, (2003),
34 Monsanto Co., Seed Piracy Update, (2004).
35 "Bean Detectives Visit Nebraskan," Omaha
World-Herald (Nov. 7,2004).
36 Anonymous farmers, phone interviews with CFS
(October 5, 2003; October 19, 2003;
October 23,, 2003).
37 Gary Rinehart, phone interview with CFS
(August 28, 2003).
38 Hal Swann, phone interview with CFS (October
19, 2303).
3,9 Wayne Board, Monsanto may take legal steps
against catching soybean seeds, Lubbock
Avalai,nce-Journal (May 24, 1997), available at
http://www.lubbockonline.com /news/052597/
monsanto,htm
4o Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS,
(August 15, 2003).
V Hal Swann, phone interview with CFS,
(October 19, 2003).
42 Mitchell Scruggs, phone interview with CFS
(August 18, 2003).
43 Gary Rinehart, phone interview with CFS
(October 20, 2003).
44 Leland Corley, phone interview with CFS
(October 28, 2003).
45 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(October 5, 2003).
46 Forgery Issue Important, Says Lawyer,
CROPCHOICE NEWS, (12/11/02), available at
http://www,cropchoice,.com/leadstryc304.html
?recid-1188
47 Gary Rinehart, phone interview with CFS
(October 20, 2003).
48 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(November 16, 2003).
49 E-mail correspondence with Troy Roush
(August 28, 2003).
5o, Ray Dawson, phone interview with CFS
(August 21, 2003).
5j Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(November 16, 2003)1.
52 Gary Rinehart, phone interview with CFS
(September 4, 2003).
53 Hal Swann, phone interview with CFS
(October 19, 2003).
54 Rich Weiss, Seeds of Discord: Monsanto's Gene
Police Raise Alarm on Farmer's Rights, Rural
Tradition, THE WASHINGTON POST, at A6
(Feb. 3,1999).
55 Monsanto Co., Seed Piracy Update (2004),.
56 Richard Davis, Don't save RR Soybeans,
CarolinalVirginia Former, (June 2003).
57 Leonard, Christopher, Soybean-Seed Lawsuits Pit
Farmers against Biotechnology Companies,
COLUMBIA (MISSOURI) DAILY TRIBUNE (April
5, 200 ), available at http://www.biotech-info.
net /soy- seed_Iawsu its. htm 1.
58 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(October 5, 2003).
59 All information in Appendix &, Lawsuits Filed
Against American Farmers by Monsanto, was
derived from court documents in the public
record (PACER: http://pacer.us,pci,uscourts.gov)
and CFS interviews with farmers and their legal
representation.
6o Occasionally there were instances of multiple
cases listed against the same defendant(s), for
instance when a case was removed to another
district or state due to lack of jurisdiction. Taking
the most conservative approach we calculated
each of these lawsuits as one to reach a final
lawsuit number of 90. Counting each case of
multiple filing or removal of jurisdiction as a sep-
arate lawsuit would bring the total number to 96.
All 96 lawsuits are included in Appendix A.
6-1 One lawsuit, Monsanto Co. v. Bandy et a/ involved
27 defendants total, 24 farmers and three busi-
nesses. This was an anomaly however; all other
lawsuits filed involved fewer than 10 defendants.
62 In three cases,, Monsanto Company v, Anderson &
Jones Inc, et a/, Monsanto co. v, Lea and Monsanto
Co. v. Morlan, the same or similar lawsuit was
filed twice in the Eastern District of Missouri.
63 In Monsanto Company v. Anderson & Jones Inc, et
at, Monsanto filed two lawsuits in the Eastern
District of Missouri, in 1999 and 2000 respectively.
Both lawsuits were subsequently dismissed for
the Court's lack of personal jurisdiction over the
defendants. The company then filed a third lawsuit
in the Southern District of Texas, in 2001. Based
on data available, although the third lawsuit was
not technically a removal of jurisdiction, it
appears to be similar if not the same in nature
as the previous, two lawsuits,, Therefore, in our
calculations of the total number of lawsuits filed
(90), we decided to conservatively count all
three Monsanto, Company v. Anderson & Jones Inc,
of of lawsuits as one. Furthermore, there were two
cases, Monsanto co,, v. Lea and Monsanto C. v.
Morlon, in which the defendants were able to
transfer jurisdiction to a different division of the
Eastern District of Missouri, but not a different
District in Missouri.
6,4 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(September 24, 2003).
65
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
Monsanto Company and Delta and Pine
Land Company v. Dallas Thomason, Dovid.D.
Thomason and Luc now Inc et a/., filed
January 22, 2002,
66 These figures do not represent the actual monetary
awards Monsanto has received as a result of
these lawsuits; monetary judgments have been
publicly recorded in only 36 of the 9,0 total lawsuits
filed (http://p,acer.uspici.uscourts.gov/). In the
remaining 53 cases, many are known to have
ended in settlements, which likely included
monetary awards for Monsanto. It is likely as well
that in some cases no monies were awarded to
Monsanto.
67 According to USDA, the average household
income for farm operators was $65,757 in 2002.
See USDA, Agriculture Economy Improves in
2003, (October, 2003).
68 Mellon, Margaret and J. Rissler, Gone to Seed:
Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed
Supply, Union of Concerned Scientists, (February
24, 2004). Available at http://www,ucsusa.
org/food—and—environment/biotechnology/page
.cfm?pageID-1315.
69 Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences,
358:1439 (November 29, 2003).
70 Monsanto Co., Commitment to our
Stakeholders: 2001-2002 Monsanto Pledge
Report, available at
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/
content/med ia/pu bs/d ia logue-pl edge. pdf
Tt Hugh Warwick and Gundula Meziani, Seeds of
Doubt: North American Farmer's Experiences
of GM Crops at 47, Soil Association, (2002).
72 CFS is not able to describe the details of many
of the most harrowing stories it has uncovered
due to confidentiality agreements farmers have
signed in settlements with Monsanto.,
73, For more information on Percy Schmeiser visit
http://www.percys,chmeiser.com.
74 For further discussion of the case, see DANIEL
CHARLES, LORDS OF THE HARVEST at
188-189 (2001).
75 Rich Weiss, Seeds of Discord: Monsanto"s Gene
Police Raise Alarm on Farmer's Rights,
Rural Tradition, THE WASHINGTON POST at A6
(Feb. 3,1999),
76 Rich Weiss, Seeds of Discord: Monsanto's Gene
Police Raise Alarm on Farmer's Rights,
Rural Tradition, THE WASHINGTON POST at A6
(Feb., 3,1999).
77 Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Schmeiser's
Appeal, available at: http://www.percyschmeiser.
com/Council�/�20of'/1�2OCanadia:ns,.htm.
78 Memo and Order (July 6, 2001),
79 Complaint (November 1, 2000).
8o Memo and Order (July 6, 2001).
8, ibid.
r.-TiEffe
83, Monsanto Co. v, Hartkornp, 2001 WL 34079482
at *1.
84 Busch, Nathan A., Jack and the Beanstalk:
Property Rights in Genetically Modified Plants, 3
MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 1 (2002), available
at http://mipr.umn.edu/archive/v3n2/busch,,pdf
85 Many farmers recognize seed dealers' rising
effort to publicize the consequence of saving
and/or selling Monsanto's seeds, As one farmer
explained: "Now you see a notice on the
door as you walk in."
86 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(September 17, 2003).
87 See Beth Bundsclorfer-Gansmann, Farmer Says
Seed Dealer Forgery Led to Legal Battle with
Monsanto, Knight-Ridder Tribune, Dec., 1,, 2002.
88 See Beth Bundsdorfer-Gansmann, Farmer Says
Seed Dealer Forgery Led to Legal Battle with
Monsanto, Knight-Ridder Tribune, Dec. 1, 2002.
8g Robert Schubert, Forgery Issue Important, Says
Lawyer, CropChoice News, (Dec. 11, 2002),
available at
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=
1188.
go Uchtmann, Donald L. Can farmers save Roundup
Ready beans for seed? McFarling and Trantham
cases say 'no'. Agricultural Law Update,
(October 2002)1.
Eugene Straterneyer's Motion for Class
Certification, Case No. 02-CV-505-MJR,
page 24,
92 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(November 6, 2003),
93 Ray and Luetta Dawson, phone interview with
CFS (August 21, 2003).
94 Anonymous farmer, phone interview with CFS
(September 17, 2003),
95 Homan McFarling, phone interview with CFS
(August 25, 2003).
96 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
Monsanto Co. v. Homan McFarling, Decided
April 9,2004.
97 Robert Schubert, Mississippi Farmer Gets Big
Break From Appeals Court in Monsanto Biotech
Seed Case, CropChoice (April 271 2004).
98 Hal Swann, phone interview with CFS
(October 19, 2003).
99 Ensuring protection of farmers from patent
prosecution would also require that any amending
of the Patent Act include the provision that the
patenting of plant genes does not extend to
patent protection for the seeds or plants that
contain those genes, See Schmeiser v. Monsanto,
No. 29437, (Can. Sup. Ct. May 21, 2004).
,00 Such an exemption has already been granted for
certain recombinant DNA inventions.
See 35 U.S.C.§ 271(e)(1).
-io, SmithKline Beecham Corp, 36,5 F.3d at 1331.
io2 Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology User Guide, at 17.
103 In 2001, North Dakota passed House Bill 1442,
a law requiring that patent holders, seeking to
enter a farmer's land: (1) Shall notify the agriculture
commissioner in writing of the person's belief
that a patent infringement has occurred and
include facts from the allegation; (2) Shall notify
the farmer in writing of the allegation that a
patent infringement has occurred and request
written permission to enter upon the farmer's
land; and (3) Must obtain the written
permission of the farmer.
-104 Under Indiana House Bill 1571 (2003).
io5 The seed supplier must give notice to the farmer
and the state seed commissioner at least five
business days in advance that the seed supplier
intends to enter the property. This notice must
include the date and time of the intended entry,
as well as the purpose for the entry. The seed
supplier must allow the farmer, the seed com-
missioner, or their agents to accompany the seed
supplier when samples are taken. The seed sup-
plier must allow the farmer, the seed commis-
sioner, or their agents to take matching samples
of any samples taken by the seed supplier.
w6 This is different from the North Dakota bill, where
farmers must still abide to the forum selection
clause if they violate the terms of a signed contract,
The North Dakota legislation does allow parties
to participate in mediation at any time. The
mediation must be conducted by a mediator
jointly selected by the farmer and the patent
holder. If the two parties are unable to select a
mediator, the mediation must be conducted by
an independent agricultural mediation service.
L ov s I.II t I A
G P, I N T M F R I C Ala Fn, )'0 r F 5 B' Y 'di' A11,
f 0
Plaintiff and Law Firm
Defendant(s) and Lawyers
Farm
Date NIed
—C a s - e
D i-s- ; r—i c.; & _J u.-dl- g--e
—St al_tus/Out...,.mm.,,.,_,._. e
P -a. went —ent to
Location
Number
Presiding
Monsanto
Monsanto Company
Holcomb Dunbar, Thompson
Adarns, Steve; Jim D. Waide, III
MS
10/10/00
1 00-CV-185
j
Northern District of
Mississippi
CONSENT PERMANENT INJUNCTION that defendant Steve Adams
is permanently enjoined from illegally saving, selling or planting seed
Coburn
containing Monsanto Company's patented technology or otherwise
infringing patents held by Monsanto Company [7/24/01].
Monsanto Company
Thompson Coburn;
Anderson & Jorres, Inc., Richard Anderson; Barnet B. Skelton, Jr
TX
11/19/99
i 99-CV-1805
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
JUDGMENT: plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for this Court's lack
the defendants in this
N/A
Frilot and Partridge
Donald J. Stohr
of personal jurisdiction over matter, terminating
case [05/08/00].
Monsanto Company
Thompson Coburn;
Anderson & Jones, Inc:., Richard Anderson; Barnet B. Skelton, Jr.
TX
10/24/00
00-CV-1694
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff's complaint
is dismissed for this Court's lack the
N/A
Frilot and Partridge
Donald J. Stohr
of personal jurisdiction over
defendants in this matter, dismissing case [02/08/01].
Monsanto Cornpany
Riddle & Baumgartner; Frilot
Anderson & Jones, Inc., Richard Anderson; Barnet B. Skelton, Jr,
TX
5/24/01
4:01-CV-
01749
Southern District of
Texas Judge Ewing
CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGEMENT- By consent of the parties,
is defendants, in favor
3,052,800.00
and Partridge; White Mackillop
Werlem, Jr
judgement entered against jointly and severally,
of Monsanto in the amount of $3,052,800, each party to bear its own
Et A
costs [6/04/03].
>
Monsanto Company
Riddle & Baumgartner; Frilot
Aungst, Mike; No Representation
MI
8/20/01
01-CV-73172
Eastern District of
Michigan Honorable
ORDER dismissing case without prejudice by the judge [8/26/2004].
The order noted that a settlement had been reached.
GY
ra
rn
and Partridge; White Mackillop
Et Al
George Caram Steeh
X
Monsanto Company
Baiady, Larry, Matthew BaUnigardner, Birkemeyer Farni Paitnership,
1. -3, IN-2,
6/8/04
4:2004-CV-
Eastern DistOct of
This case is ongoing. It was filed in response to a class action lawsuit that
Arnold and Porter LLP; Bryan
Cave LLP
Doyle Bounds, Garry Bounds, Tirn Curry, Michaei Dora, Andy Dupraz,
Dee Fortkarnp, Bruce Glasow, StqAien Goff, Charlynn Hamilton, Dean
IA-2, KS-2,
MI-1, MN.-
00708
I
Missouri Honorable E.
Richard Webber
was filed against Monsanto in 13 different states by the 27 individuals/
corporations listed as defendants. Monsanto claims that the farmers
Howard, James Howard,hrinrnie Howwd, Richard HugIres, Richard
Kraus,.➢R., Walter Otis, Francis Perfingw Kenneth Polo, Hilmer
Schoenbaurn, Wayne E. Scholi, Dori Sdw order, Tfrornas Steiskal,
Randy Toenies, Linion Lh w Farms, Inc., Vandervoort Fzvrns, Inq
2, MO-3,
NE-6, ND-
1, OH-2,
SD-1, TN-1,
breached the Patent License Agreement's forum selection clause when
they filed class action suits outside of St. Louis, MO. Monsanto also
claims that by breaching the clause they terminated their licenses to
Roundup ReadyO YieldGardc technology, therefore
Monsanto Company
Adam J. Levitt, Charles F Speer, David A.P. Brower, Stephen A. Weiss
Bates, Steven, Scott Bates, Bernard Bates; Jeffrey S Standley
WI-1
Old
8/26/97
97-CV-953
Southern District of
use and and are
infringing on Monsanto's patents by growing these crops,
CONSENT JUDGMENT dismissing with prejudice Bernard Bates-
5,595.00
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease
Ohio Senior Judge
Joseph P Kinneary;
judgment against Steven Bates & Scott Bates d1ba Bates Grain in the
amount of $5,595.00 & $15,000.00 in attorney fees & terminating case.
Referred to Mag.
Judge Mark R. Abel
[02/20/98]
Monsanto Company
Todd, LLC; Frilot,
Bowfing, Paul; Michael E. Coen
KY
7/1/99
99-CV-424
Western District of
Kentucky
ORDER by the judge, counsel having notified the court of a settlement
A,
Frost Brown
Partridge, Kohnke & Clements,
L.C.
Judge
Charles R. Simpson III
in this case, IT IS ORDERED that the case is dismissed; to reinstate
within 45 days if the settlement is not consummated. [8/24/99]
f
Monsanto Company
Britt, Ralph (Sr,), Ralph Britt (Jr.), Gregory Allen Britt„ Pro Se
NC
1/23/02
02-CV-10
Eastern District of
Consent judgment and permanent injunction; By consent of the parties,
67,664.80
Brooks, Pierce, Mdenclon,
Humphrey & Leonard"
North Carolina
judgment is entered against defendants, in favor of Monsanto in the
amount of $67,664.80 [08/03/02].
Monsanto Company
Bryant, Jon Scott; Dale Aschemann
IL
12/19/01
01-CV-187
Eastern District of
Monsanto initially demanded $75,000. A settlement was reached
Husch And Eppenberger, LLC;
Office of U.S. Attorney;
Missouri Honorable
Catherine D. Perry
[7/26/02]. Case dismissed with prejudice [9/17/02].
Thompson Coburn
Monsanto Company
Smith Moore LLP; Smith,
Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
Byrd, Giles, Eloise Byrd, Giles Byrd & Son, Inc., Cam, Brent krc.;
Michael E. Mauney
NC
8/31/99
99-CV-154
Eastern District of
North Carolina
Permanent Injunction by stipulation [11/24/01]. It is likely that a
monetary settlement was reached in this case, but public information
is lacking this
Monsanto Company
Clark, Allen L,, Clark's River Farm, lnc.�
MO
3/29/04
I
i 1:04-CV-
Eastern District of
on matter.
A settlement was reached through Alternative Dispute Resolution
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
Scott D. Dale and Bobby Peterson
00039
Missouri Honorable
Catherine D. Perry
[11/18/20041; Dismi,sal papers should be filed by 12/20/2004.
* Settlement reached; amount not disclosed
* Terms of dismissal, including
On-going Cases
possible financial settlements, not disclosed
J „s< i r. J ,
. ., .o r,ai
Plaintiff and Laver Firm
'r! ''f J >, 0 r1 ,A'i 1 'i Ir_
Defendant(s) and Lawyers Farm
CJ f1, , :1
Date FEW
Case
District & Judge
Status /Outcome Payment to
Location
Number
Presiding
Monsanto
Monsanto Company
Thompson Coburn; Frilot and
Partridge
Collier, Franklin; John Gianoulakis, David A. Castleman AR
6/22/99
99 -CV -995
Eastern District of
Missouri Mag. Judge
Lawrence 0, Davis
The case was referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution [05 /08 /00],
and appears to have ended in settlement. Soon after there was a
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF CASE by Monsanto
plaintiff Company,
defendant Franklin Collier with prejudice. Each party to bear its or his
own attorneys fees and costs. NOTED & SO ORDERED [06/02/2000].
Monsanto Company
Husch Eppenberger, LLC
Corbett, Mitchell, Ray Corbett, Lydia Corbett, Ryan Corbett; IN
No Representation
2/19/03
03 -CV -207
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
CONSENT JUDGEMENT against defendant Mitchell Corbett, defendant 65,000.00
Ray Corbett,
and
Donald J. Stohr
defendant Lydia Corbett, defendant Ryan Corbett in the
amount of $ 65,000 terminating case [04/28/03].
Monsanto Company
David, Loren G.; Timothy M. O'Keeffe, Christopher M. Kennelly ND
4/12/04
4:04CV425
Eastern District of
The case is ongoing; it was sent to Alternative Dispute Resolution,
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
Missouri Honorable
Henry E. Autrey
but the parties did not reach a settlement [11/30/2004].
Monsanto Company
Dawson, Ray, Ray Clawson Farms Partnership; AR
12/2/98
98 -CV -2004
Eastern District of
A permanent injunction was ordered against the defendant [05 /08/01]. 2,586,325.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Richard P. Sher, Phillip Hicky, Clifford M. Cole
Missouri Mag Judge
Consent Judgment in the amount of $2,586,325.00 [12/19/01].
Bryan
Partridgeve,LLP;Frilotand
Thomas C. Mummert
III
.,.,
�,,
Monsanto Company
p y
i:Debuhr, Linn; Adam H. Jacobs NE
11/21/01
4:01 -CV-
district of Nebraska
A confidential settlement was reached. ORDER granting Joint stipulation
tipulation
o
Frilot Partridge Law Firm; Koley
Jessen Law Firm
03293
Judge Warren K.
Urbom
for dismissal with prejudice [10/16/02].
�
x
Monsanto C ornpany
..............._�_.,,,,.., ... .,,, ,.,.,.,........,..�__.....,..,. ,,,.,.,,,..,.,.,..mow...,.......
Debuhr, Mark; Adam H. Jacobs NE
.,,,,,,,., ....,. -.,
11/7_1!01
4:01 -CV-
District of Nebraska
A settlement was reached. Dismissed with prejudice, each party to
Frilot Partridge Law Firm; Koley
Jessen Law Firm
03294
Judge Warren K.
Urbom
pay their own costs [12/18/02].
Monsanto '
C:onapany
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Frilot and Partridge
Douglas, lc-arnes E. (Jr.); No Representation MO
3/30/98
98 -CV -542
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable E
Richard Webber
Dismissed without prejudice [6/10/1998] ... ...,._...,w_,.. ,._m.,_,... _,. ...,.
p J ® �
;
Monsanto C:or °nparry„ ..,..,..,,.�
Company
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Eaton, Glen F.; Bill W. Bristow, Joe A. Summerford AR
3/13/00
00 -CV -435
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
Consent Judgment for Monsanto in the amount of $866,880.00. 866,880 00
Bryan Cave LLP; Frilot and
Partridge; Office of U.S. Attorney
E.
Richard Webber
The injunctive provisions of the Final Consent Injunction Judgment
shall continue in full force and effect [10/11/01].
Monsanto Company
Husch and Eppenberger;
Ethridge, W.A.; Jim Waide MS
10/4/00
00 -CV -1592
Eastern District of
Missouri Mag Judge
FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT: for plaintiff 377,978.15
Monsanto Company, counter - defendant Monsanto Company against
Thompson Coburn; Bryan Cave
LLP; Frilot and Partridge; Office
U.S. Attorney
Thomas C. Mummert
III
defendant W. A. Ethridge, counter - claimant W. A. Ethridge in the amount
of $ 377,978.15 terminating case [06/04/02].
of
Monsanto Company
Mitchell Williams Selig Gates
& Woodyard, PLLC; Frilot
Fitts, Floward; William McShane Bridgforth, John Jarrod Russell AR
12/6/02
02 -CV -178
Eastern District of
Arkansas
Ongoing as of 12/02/04. Information on public record is unavailable
at this time.
Partridge Kohnke & Clements
Monsanto Company
Ford, Dean, Debbie: Ford, Melvin Ford, Jason Weimer, Ford IN
3/5/04
4:04 -CV -..
southern District of
Ir
Case is ongoing- Settlement conference set for 2/2/2005.
Frost Brown & Todd, LLC; Frilot,
Partridge, Lohnke & Clements,
L.C.
Lumber & Building .Supply, lrac., Jaame.s Reed;
Barry N. Bitzegaio, Michael Lee Rogers, Darrell M. Auxier
00064
Indiana David Frank
Hamilton, Referred to
Magistrate Judge
Monsanto Company
Gainey, Graham, Gainey Grain lnc.; NC
1/29/03
03-CV-99
William G.
Hussmann Jr.
Middle District of
CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGEMENT entered against 338,137.00
Brooks Pierce Mclendon
Humphrey & Leonard; Frilot
Partridge Kohnke & Clements,
L.C.
A, Settlement reached; amount
A Terms of dismissal, including
On -going Cases
Jimmy Wade Goodman, John E. Raper, Jr.
not disclosed
possible financial settlements, not disclosed
I
North Carolina Judge
William L. Osteen
defendants in the amount of $338,137.00 [2/23/04].
�
J!
V
M
z
E
0 � A 114 'f
Plaintiff and Law Firm Defendant(s) and Lawyers Farm Date Filed Case District & Judge Status/Outcome Payment to
Location Number Presiding Monsanto
Monsanto Company Garbers, Jack; LaMar T Piper MN 4/21/99 99-CV-632 Eastern District of CONSENT JUDGEMENT for plaintiff Monsanto Company in the 45,000.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC; Missouri Honorable amount of $ 45,000.00 [08/13/991.
Frilot and Partridge Donald J. Stohr
Monsanto Company Garrell, Terry, Bobby Garrell; Pro Se at first. Later hired an attorney. NC 12/18/01 01-CV-230 Eastern District of FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION and JUDGMENT for Monsanto 34,316.89
Brooks, Pierce, Mclendon, On the Consent Judgement forms, James Earl Hill Jr. of Hill & High j North Carolina Company against Bobby 0. Garrell, Terry Garrell for $34,316,89, each
Humphrey & Leonard signed for defendants party to otherwise bear its own costs, plus the defendants are enioined
Monsanto Company Husch and Godfredson, Mark; Christopher J. Daus, Sr, Gerald M. Kraai, Sam S. A
Eppenberger, LLC; Bryan Cave Killinger
LLP; Frilot and Partridge
Monsanto Company Good, Richard S., Good Fauns, inc.; NJ
Brown & Connery, LLP Timothy E. Annin
Monsanto Company Hill Seed Cornisany, Mark Hffl;
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC Karen A. Baudendistel, E.W. Gentry Sayad, James J. Virtel
Monsanto Company Hunt, Donei, k.)hn Hunt, Hk
Brooks, Pierce, Mclendon, Gordon C. Woodruff
Humphrey & Leonard
Settlement reached; amount not disclosed
♦ Terms of dismissal, including possible financial settlements, not disclosed
On-going Cases
4/3/00
4/6/01
3/10/04
12/8/03
1/15/02
IA 2/12/03
NC 1/23/02
6:00-CV-164 Eastern District of
JUDGMENT: in favor of Monsanto in the amount of $75,000.00 and 75,000.00
Oldahorna
against defendant Hendrk Hartkamp [08/30/011.
01-CV-523 Easiern District of This case was settled. STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF CASE by plain-
Missouri Honorable E. tiff with prejudice, plaintiff to pay any court costs [07/26/011.
Richard Webber
04-CV-487 Northern District of This case is ongoing. The current deadline for discovery completion
Alabama Judge Inge P is 3/18/05, and the case is set to go to trial later in 2005.
Johnson
03-CV-3249 Northern District of
Alabama Judge C
Lynwood Smith, Jr
This case was settled. CONSENT INJUNCTION and JUDGEMENT: 41,753.75
Monetary damages awarded to Monsanto in the amount $41,753,75;
There is a permanent injunction against the defendant purchasing, using,
or planting Monsanto biotechnology without written permission from
Monsanto; Each party pays its own legal fees [8/12/041.
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
Carol E. Jackson
In an ORDER, the judge requested that the plaintiff file for default
judgement, because the defendant had not filed an answer to
Monsanto's complaint 20 days after it was filed [4/01/021. A month
later it dismissed
was voluntarily—STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF
CASE by plaintiff withoul prejudice [05/01/021.
4:2003-CV- Eastern District of
00181 M4ssouri Honorable
This case is ongoing and Monsanto has entered a demand of $75,000,
Some documents
Carol E. Jackson
court are under sea] and closed to the public. There
was a bench trial on 6/14/04.
02-CV-11 Eastern District of
North Carolina
FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGEMENT against the 61,150.00
defendant in favor of Monsanto in the amount of $61,150;
plus a permanent injunction [12/23/021.
Plaintiff and Lawn Firm
Defendant(s) and Lawyers
Farm gate Piled
Case
District fir Judge
Status /Outcome Payment to
Location
Plumber
Presiding
Monsanto
Monsanto Corrgsany
Holcomb Dunbar; Husch &
Jaroraes, Marvin H.; Jim D. Waide, III
MS 10/11/00
00 -CV -188
Northern District of
Mississippi
CONSENT PERMANENT INJUNCTION that defendant Marvin H. Jones 6
is permanently enjoined from illegally saving, selling or planting seed
Eppenberger, LLC; Thompson
Coburn
containing Monsanto Company's patented technology or otherwise
infringing patents held by Monsanto Company [7/24/01].
Monsanto Cornpany
Thompson Coburn; Husch and
Jorgensen F°aurrns, 11C, Carl and Keith 9orgensena
No Representation
ID 3/21/00
00 -CV -474
Eastern District of'
Missouri Honorable
In the beginning of the case, the judge ordered the defendants A
temporarily enjoined from transferring, destroying or removing any
Eppenberger, LLC; Bryan Cave
LLP
Stephen N. Limbaugh
Naturemark Potatoes or NatureMark potato seeds or other registered
Naturmark products and /or business records reflecting the ownership,
control of such or which infringement Monsanto's
products reflects of
patents [3/21/04]. Soon thereafter, a STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
OF CASE filed by
without prejudice was Monsanto and so ordered
by the judge [03/27/00].
Monsanto Cornpany
Kelly, Norman, Kelly Farms;
TN 9/14/01
01 -CV -1484
Eastern District of
CONSENT JUDGEMENT against defendant Norman Kelly, defendant 163,770.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
William G. Hatton
Missouri Honorable
Kelly Farms in the amount of $163,770.00 terminating case
Bryan Cave LLP; Office of U.S.
Attorney
Carol E. Jackson
[05/15/02].
Monsanto Ca�anipany
Kelley, Will"aarn; Louis D. Nettles
Sc 10115104
4:2004 -CV-
Eastern District of
On -going as of 12/06/2004. Monsanto filed a MOTION to Expedite
.1
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
01428
Missou H Honorable E.
Discovery and for Protective Order [10/21/04]. In a MEMORANDUM
z
Richard Webber
in response to this motion [11/04/04], the defense counsel states,
"The Plaintiff's basis for making this Motion.., is a claim that Kelley
might actually harvest his crop. The Plaintiff states no facts and has no
supporting affidavits which would suggest that Kelley has ever claimed
that the beans that are growing on his farmland are anything but
Round -Up Ready beans" The Motion to Expedite Discovery, etc. was
granted in part and denied in part by the judge [11/05/04].
Monsanto Cornplany
Kyie„ Lenny .hoe, BHJy* Kype, .Roe -Co;
AR 11/29/04
2:2004 -CV-
Eastern District of
This case is ongoing as of 12/09/04. Monsanto entered a MOTION for
Mitchell Williams Selig Gates
No Representation listed in docket; John Everett is mentioned as
00208
Arkansas Judge
expedited discovery and entry of protective order [11/29/04], and the
& Woodyard, PLLC; Frilot
Partridge Kohnke & Clements
defense counsel in Monsanto's brief [11/29/04]
James M. Moody
brief in support of this motion noted that "Surveillance was initiated of
defendant's farming Monsanto
soybean operations after received an
anonymous report that they were planting Roundup ReadyO soybeans"
[11/29/04].
Monsanto Company
Kna ckrn as, Dale; Paul J. Seele
IL 2/11/98
98 -CV -261
Eastern District of
CONSENT JUDGEMENT for Monsanto in the amount of $50,000, 50,000.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Frilot and Partridge
Missouri Honorable
Rodney W. Sippel
terminating case with prejudice [8/17/98].
Monsanto Coagmny
Thompson Coburn; Husch and
Lea, Roan; Jack B. Spooner, Mark J. Pelts
MO 12/17/99
99 -CV -1994
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable E.
Judge Webber granted Defendant Ron Lea's motion to transfer venue N/A .. ..
to the Southeastern
Eppenberger, LLC; Bryan Cave
LLP; Frilot and Partridge
Richard Webber
Division of the Eastern District of Missouri
[04/24/00].
Monsanto Conrprany
Lea, Roca; Jack B. Spooner, Mark J. Pelts
MO 4/24/00
00 -CV -37
Eastern District of
This is the continuation of the case above in the new venue. 140,665.00
Thompson Coburn; Husch and
I
Mis:a. -,o au,i Honorable
CONSENT JUDGEMENT for Monsanto in the amount $140,665.00,
Eppenberger, LLC; Bryan Cave
LLP; Frilot and Partridge
Catherine D. Perry
terminating case, plus an injunction [5/27/02].
Monsanto Cornpany
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
L.irng, Edwin, Ricky Ling, Edwin Ling F'arrrma
George W. Gilmore, Jr.
MO 8/16/01
01 -CV -122
Eastern District of
Missoueru
Edwin Ling passed away during the course of this case [9/13/02]. mM �
Bryan Cave LLP; Office of U.S.
Attorney
Honorable
Charles A. Shaw
A few months later the case was dismissed voluntarily without prejudice
[2/26/2002].
Monsanto Company
Long, Dewey; No Representation
IL 3/31/98
98 -CV -3079
CentrM District of
This case ended in settlement. NOTICE of DISMISSAL
Greensfelder Hemker & Gale
s, Settlement reached; amount
O Terms of dismissal, including
On -going Cases
not disclosed
possible financial settlements, not disclosed
illprroois Judge Richard
Mills
(entitled Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss) [04/29/98].
Settlement reached; amount not disclosed
O Terms of dismissal, including possible financial settlements, not disclosed
On-going Cases
Plaintiff and Law Firm
Defendants) and Lawyers
Farm Date Filed
Case
District & Judge
.......... .
Status/Outcome Payment to
Location
Number
Presiding
Monsanto
Monsanto Cornparry
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Frilot and Partridge
Massey, Michael; No Representation
MS 11/5/99
99-CV-1737
111
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable E.
Richard Webber
Dismissed voluntarily without prejudice by Monsanto [12/10/99].
Monsanto Company
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Mayfield, John, Pawl Mayfield;
George Dale Reesman, Bruce E. Johnson
AR 4/2/99
99-CV-538
Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
This case was settled and dismissed voluntarily with prejudice [10/17/00],
along with a CONSENT INJUNCTION ORDER: Mayfields are prohibited
Bryan Cave LLP; Frilot and
Partridge
Charles A. Shaw
from purchasing Monsanto patented seed technology, except YieldGard
Corn, for a period of 5 years from the date of this order [10/18/00].
Monsanto Company
Oldham & Kennedy; Frilot
McAlister, Terry; D DTyn Davison
TX 4/8/03
7:03-CV-
00074
Northern District of
Texas Judge Jerry
ORDER DISMISSING CASE.-the cause of action of the Plaintiff against
Defendants be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice against the refiling
Partridge Kohnke & Clements
Buchmeyer
of same with court costs taxed against the party incurring same
[06/24/2003].
Monswito Company
McFarling, Hornan; Jim Waide, Gary Myers, James L. Robertson,
MS 1/19/00
00-CV-84
Eastern District of
This case is ongoing, A FINAL JUDGMENT in the amount of
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Layton Jager Smith, Jr.
Missouri Honorable
$780,000.00 was entered against McFarling for breach of contract
Office of U.S. Attorney; Bryan
Catherine D. Perry
[11/15/02]. On appeal, the judge upheld the court's basic ruling that
•
Cave LLP; Frilot and Partridge
McFarling breached his contract with Monsanto, howeve,, it also found
that the 120 for the damages
multiplier calculation of in Monsanto's tech
agreement was unenforceable under Missouri law [4/09/04]. Currently
o
McFarling's case is still open and a petition for certoriari to the Supreme
rn
Z
Court has been filed for a second time (the first was denied).
Monsanto Company
Meekins, Frank (Jr,), Vashti L, Meekins;
Sc 1/8/02
02-CV-32
District of South
FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT for plaintiff 41,795,60
Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough; Mckay Cauthen
Autrey Carmichael Stephens
Carolina Judge Terry L
Wooten
Monsanto Company against defendant Frank Meekins Jr, defendant
Vashti L Meekins in the amount of $41,795.60, each party to otherwise
Settana Martin and Addison
bear its own costs, plus a permanent injunction [07/08/02].
Monsanto Company
Nelson Mullins Riley
Meekins, Larry F4 Autrey Carmichael Stephens
SC 1/8/02
02-CV-33
District of South
Carolina
FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT for plaintiff 42,742.80
and
Scarborough; Mckay Cauthen
Judge Terry L
Wooten
Monsanto Company against defendant Larry F Meekins in the amount
of $42,724,80, each party to otherwise bear its own costs, plus a
Settana Martin and Addison
permanent injunction [07/08/02],
Monsanto Cwnpany
Meeks, Nacy, Meeks Farms inc,,,
.... .. ..... ...
AL 12/8/03
03-CV-3250
Northern District of
This case is ongoing and in discovery as of 12/06/04.
Bradley Arent Rose & White;
R. Don Ward
Aiabarna Judge
In it's COMPLAINT, Monsanto claims, "Meeks sold Roundup Ready
Frilot Partridge Kohnke &
Sharon Lovelace
soybean seed to Monsanto investigators working on behalf of Monsanto
Clements LC
Blackburn
and has refused to speak to Monsanto Representatives regarding this
matter" [12/08/03].
Monsanto Company
Husch And Eppenberger, LLC;
Miller, Scott, Scott Milier Farms;
Dale Aschemann
IL 12/11/01
01-CV-1938
Eastern District of
Missouri
A settlement was reached in this case, Dismissed Voluntarily:
Thompson Coburn; Bryan Cave
LLP
Honorable
Rodney W. Sippel
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF CASE with prejudice- SO ORDERED
[07/08/02].
Monsanto Company
.............
Moore, Paul; Terry Abernathy
TN 8/18/99
99-CV-1195
Western District of
CONSENT JUDGMENT in favor of Monsanto Co. in the amt of 44,000.00
Wyatt Tarrant & Combs; Frilot
Partridge Kohnke & Clements
Tennessee J. Daniel
Breen
$44,000.00 dollars - it is ordered that a permanent injunction be
entered against Paul Moore enjoining him from any further unauthorized
use of Monsanto's patented technology covered by patent numbers
5,633,435 and 5,352,605. This action brought against defendant,
Paul Moore, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE - each party to
bear its own costs [02/02/01],
Monsanto Company
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
Morlan, Aub,y Wffliarn, Morlan Farms, inc.;
Jack B, Spooner
MO 4/3/02
02-CV-476
Ea stern District of
fviissouH Honorable
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Southeastern N/A
Division the United States District Court for
Catherine D. Perry
of the Eastern District of
Missouri by the Honorable Catherine D. Perry [06/06/2002].
Settlement reached; amount not disclosed
O Terms of dismissal, including possible financial settlements, not disclosed
On-going Cases
Plaintiff and Law Firm Defendant(s) and Lawyers Farm Date Filed
Case District & Judge Status/Outcome
Location I Number Presiding
,' I M...
Monsanto Company Morlan, Autry William, Randy Merrick, Morlan Farms, inc.; MO 6/4/02 I 02-CV-77 Eastern District of This was a continuation of the case above in a new venue. It was 353,77100
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC Jack B. Spooner, Dale E. Gerecke Missouri Honorable eventually settled, and a FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND
Catherine D. Perry JUDGEMENT was entered for Monsanto in the amount $353,773;
plus a permanent injunction on the defendants [3/3/2004].
Monsanto Company Nelson, Greg, Nelson Farms, Ent.; ND 10/11/00 j 00-CV-1636 Eastern District of Monsanto initially demanded $75,000. Nelson motioned to transfer the
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC; Mark R. Fraase Missouri Honorable case to North Dakota, and/or to have the case arbitrated by the North
Thompson Coburn; Bryan Cave Carol E. Jackson Dakota Dept. of Agriculture, but the judge ruled against both [9/10/01].
LLP; Frilot and Partridge The case was then settled, and a JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL
defendant
[11/02/01]
Monsanto Company Potts, William R., B&B Custom Applications, Inc.; OH 4/19/04 2:04-CV- Southern District of This is a continuation of the case above in a new venue, and it is ongoing
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC; Shannon Marie Treynor, Daniel Chadd McKitrick, i 00282 Ohio Algenon L as of 12/06/04. Mediation for settlement is set to take place in 2005.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister Rick Louis Brunner Marbley, Referred to
Norah McCann King
Monsanto Company Quick, William; Pro Se
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Frilot and Partridge
IA 2/10/98 98-CV-249 Eastern District of CONSENT JUDGEMENT by the judge for plaintiff Monsanto Company
Missouri Mag. against defendant William Quick and terminating case [5/13/981.
Judge Thomas C.
Mummert III
M
A VV S 1I I5 F ii. ED A 1`4 S f L,% N4 E R, C A F A R VI E S P, Y M S A, N, 1'0 ( C t�) 'I
Plaintiff and Law Firm Defendant(s) and Lawyers Farm Date Filed
Location
Monsanto Company Ralph, Kem; Louis J. Leonatti, Randall P. Baker, Jim Waide, James L. TN 1/28/00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC; Robertson, Layton Jager Smith, Jr, A. Spencer Gilbert, Paul Eldridge
Office of U.S. Attorney; Bryan Barnes
Cave LLP; Frilot and Partridge
Monsanto Company Reidenbach, Paul, Paul W, Reidenbach Enterprises, Inc.; IN 9/13/04
Hawk Haynie Kammeyer & Daniel J. Sigler
Chickedantz LLP; Frilot
Partridge Kohnke and
Clements LC
Monsanto Company Rinehart, Gary; Leland H. Corley MO 3/19/03
Meise & McMorris
Monsanto Company Robinson, Leslie, E., Valley Ridge Grain Co., Inc.; MO 10/8/03
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC Tom K. O'Loughlin 11
Monsanto Company Robinson, Leslie, E.; Erica D. Koetting MO 10/8/03
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
Monsanto Company Rogers, Harold Sr., Harold Rogers Jr.; SC 2/6/02
Nelson Mullins Riley and A. LaFon LeGette, Jr.
Scarborough; Mckay Cauthen
Settana Martin and Addison;
Frilot Partridge Kohnke and
Clements
Monsanto Company Rogge, Gary; Jeffrey McGinnis
Frilot, Partridge Law Firm;
Koley, Jessen Law Firm
Monsanto Company Roman, Mike; Janna Fulfer, Grady Terrill, Mike Roman
Frilot Partridge Kohnke & (pro se at first)
Clements;Asbury & Asbury
Monsanto Company Roush, Ronald, Troy Roush, Todd Roush, Tony Roush,
Hawk Haynie Kammeyer & TDR Farms Inc.;
Chickedantz LLP; Frilot David A Lundy, Justin Sage, Linda Cooley
Partridge Kohnke and Clements
LC; Thompson Coburn LLP
Monsanto Company S.B.D., Inc., Scott McAllister; IA 1/15/02
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC William C. Foote
Monsanto Company Shuler, William; James Abourezk, Todd Epp SID 7/6/01
Bantz, Gosch, Cremer,
Peterson, Sommers & Wager;
Frilot Partridge Kohnke &
Clements
/h, Settlement reached; amount not disclosed
♦ Terms of dismissal, including possible financial settlements, not disclosed
On-going Cases
Case District & Judge
Status/Outcome Payment to
Number Presiding
Monsanto
00-CV-135 Eastern District of
Missouri Honorable
Rodney W. Sippel
This case went to trial in December 2002 and the jury reached a verdict 2,410,206.00
for Monsanto. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that
Monsanto Company shall recover from the defendants $2,410,206.00
for patent damages, plus $178,036.51 in prejudgment interest, plus
$57,833.20 in costs, plus $291,451.36 in attorneys fees for a total amount
through July 9, 2003 of $2,937,527,07 [07/09/03].
1:2004-CV- Northern District of
00342 Indiana Judge William
Ongoing as of 12/06/04. There was an ORDER granting MOTION for
Expedited Discovery and MOTION for Protective Order filed by Monsanto
C. Lee, Referred to
Magistrate Judge
Company. Defendants shall permit entry onto land as specified in this
order no later than 10/6/04, and defendants shall not conduct any
Roger B. Cosbey
----------
tillage operations also as specified in the order [9/22/04].
5:03-CV- Western District of
06034-GAF Missouri District
Judge Gary A. Fenner
Rinehart operates a store, and does not himself farm any land. The case
was dismissed voluntarily, with prejudice at Plaintiff's costs [4/23/03],
1:03-CV-00115 Eastern District
of Missouri Mag.
Judge Thomas C.
A settlement was reached- FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND 75,000.00
JUDGEMENT: By consent of parties, judgment is entered against
Defendants in favot of Monsanto in the amount of $75,000,
Mummert III
each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees [4/29/04].
1:03-CV-00116 Eastern District of
ORDER administratively closing this case until bankruptcy proceedings N/A
Missouri Honorable
Rodney W. Sippel
have been concluded or court action is otherwise required [10/17/03],
02-CV-358 District of South
Carolina Thomas
Edward Rogers, III
JUDGMENT for plaintiff Monsanto Company against defendant 325,298.00
Harold C Rogers Jr, in the amount of $325,298 [05/07/04].
NE 11121101 4:01-CV- District of Nebraska FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT: pit is awarded 48,720.00
03295 Warren K. Urbom $48,720.00; Rogge is permanently enjoined from making, using,
offering to sell, or selling any of Monsanto's patented crop technology,
unless permission is given by Monsanto [4/25/02].
TX 4/25/03 1:03-CV- Northern District of CONSENT JUDGEMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION: 1,250,000,00
00068 Texas Sam R. Roman must pay Monsanto 1,250,000 in damages; he is permanently
Cummings enjoined from purchasing, planting, or using Monsanto's patented crop
seed biotechnologies.
IN 5/10/00
00-CV-208 Northern District of This case was settled. ORDER granting motion to dismiss case, Afil,
Indiana Judge Roger with prejudice [03/04/02].
B. Cosbey
02-CV-73 Eastern District of CONSENT INJUNCTION JUDGMENT-in favor of Monsanto, 1,000,000.00
Missouri David D. in the amount of $1,000,000 [9/10/04].
Noce
01-CV-1015 District of South FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION JUDGMENT against 239,289.00
Dakota Charles B. William D. Shuler in the amount of $239,289.00 [05/24/02].
Kornmann
rn
L /), VV S I,) I T m F I L c, A i Y A 1 v,; I,. la I C I`,, N 1""" A k P)t E" F", S 13 Y
Plaintiff and Law Firm Defendant(s) and Lawyers
N S A N, ( 0 Y ,f, D
Farm Date Filed
Location
Monsanto Company Scruggs, Mitchell, Eddie Scruggs;
Husch & Eppenberger, LLC; James Robertson, Paul Barnes, Spencer Gilbert, Mark Harris
Warden Triplett Grier, PA
MS 10/22/01
Monsanto Company Scruggs, Mitchell, Eddie Scruggs, Scruggs rarrn Supply;
MS 9/7/00
Holcomb Dunbar; Lake Tindall, Dennis Sweet, Gary Myers, James Robertson, Jim Waide,
LLP; Husch & Eppenberger, LLC; Lisa Rohman
Thompson Coburn; Mcteer &
Associates; Arnold & Porter;
Howrey Simon Arnold & White
Monsanto Company Smith, Mike; Leland H. Corley
Meise & Mcmorris; Lewis, Rice
&Fingersh Kcmo
MO 3/19/03
Monsanto Company Snowden, Don, Donald Snowden;
Richards Elder Srader No Representation
Phillips & Mclaren
TX 2111100
Monsanto Company Stephens, Robert, Camellia Stephens;
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Andrew Hanley
Moore, 1-1.P.; Frilot, Partirdge,
NC 10/18/00
Kohnke & Clements, LC
Monsanto Cornpany Stewart, Phillip; R. Don Ward
Bradley Arant Rose & White;
Frilot Partridge Kohnke &
AL 12/8/03
Clements LC
Monsanto Company Shraterneyer, Eugene; Edwin D. Akers, Jr.
Thompson Coburn; Frilot and
Partridge
IL 7/30/99
Monsanto Company Straterneyer, Eugene; Thomas Crosby, Richard Mager, Ronald
Thompson Coburn; Frilot Osman, Robert Eisler, Richard A. Green, Randy Patchett, Lori
and Partridge; Husch & Dale Aschemann, Don Barrett, Jeffrey Berkbigler, Edwin Akers,
Eppenberger; Mckenna Long Elizabeth Cabraser.
IL 9/1/99
Andrus,
& Aldridge; Becker Paulson
Et Al.; Bryan Cave
Monsanto Company Styron, Herbert, Rodney Styron, 'Terry Styron,
Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Herbert Styron & Sons, Inc.;
Clements; Hand Arendall L.L.C. Bert P. Noojin
AL 6/29/98
Monsanto Company Swann, Hal, Swann Farm Partnership;
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC; Jim Waide
Office of U.S. Attorney;
Thompson Coburn;
Bryan Cave LLP
MS 9/14/00
Case District & Judge
Number Presiding
2:01-MC- District of Kansas
00226-CM Carlos Murguia
00-CV-161 Northern District c
Mississippi W. AllE
Pepper
Status/Outcome Pay
Moi
Notice of withdrawal by Monsanto Company [5/15/02]. N/A
Ongoing as of 12/3/04. Permanent injunction signed 11/4/04;
appealed 11/29/04. Defendant's antitrust & state commonlaw
counterclaims dismissed by order [11/5/04].
1:98-CV- Southern District of Judgement for Monsanto Co. against Herbert, Rodney and Terry Styron 100,000,00
00654-CB Alabama Judge in the amount of $100,000,00. Defendants are permanently enjoined
Charles R. Butler, Jr from infringing Monsanto Company's patents regarding Roundup Ready
soybeans[3/15/99].
00-CV-1481 Eastern District of Ongoing as of 12/04. A summary judgement was granted with respect
Missouri Honorable to counts I through V of the first amended complaint acknowledging that
Carol E. Jackson patent infringement happened, The Court will establish a new trial date
after disposition of the pending appeal in Monsanto Company v. McFarling.
Monsanto is requesting that the court reward it $912,600.00 in damages,
L,(,,,,vv s u i F i I [ E D A
Plaintiff and Law Firm
G A I N S T A 0 F ' , R , I CA ro 1"" 1"", 'rS PIA 0 I,4 5, A N F0 c, ,D ("d,
Defendant(s) and Lawyers Farm
f � 1)
Date Filed
Case
District & Judge
Status/Outcome Payment to
Location
Num ber
Presiding
Monsanto
Monsanto Company
Tabor, Greg, Grady Tabor, Carolyn Tabor, G&C Farms Partnership; AR
7/25/03
..
03-CV-1008
Eastern District of
In accordance with Confidential Settlement Agreement, case closed 110,000.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
Jeffrey H. Kass, John H. Quinn
Missouri Judge David
D. Noce
02/27/04.
Monsanto Company
...........
Thomason, Elbert, Charles Thomason, David Thomason, Lasley LA
7/23/97
---9-7-CV-1454
District of Western
Jury returned verdict in favor of Monsanto and Delta Pine: defendants 447,797.05
Frilot Partridge Et A]
Thomason, Bale-A-Day Inc., Cotton Plantation, Inc., 3-T Cotton
Louisiana Judge
must pay $447,797.05 to Monsanto, plus $279,741 in attorney fees,
Farms of Rayville Inc., Lucknow Inc.; Donald L. Kneipp, Bruce
James D. Kirk
$57,469.13 in costs, and $75,545,83 for testing fields to Monsanto.
Johnson,Rex D Rainach, John M Landis, Michael Q Walshe, Jr
Monsanto Company
Timmerman, Clifford; Mark Henry, Thomas Germeroth AR
10/25/02
02-CV-1631
Eastern District of
FINAL CONSENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT in the amount of 30,000.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC
Missouri Judge
Catherine D. Perry
$30,000.00 6/12/03; Confidential settlement before trial,
Monsanto Company
Tarrant & Combs; Frilot
Trentham, William; Jim Waide TN
7/25/00
00-CV-2656
Western District of
Tennessee Thomas A.
Initial jury verdict awarded Monsanto $34,392,00 [10/02/01]; 318,397.50
the deemed "exceptional" the final damages
Wyatt
Partridge Kohnke & Clements;
Wiseman
case was and were
enhanced to $318,397,50. Including attorney fees and prejudgement
Thompson Coburn LLP
interest, judgement was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $592,677.89
In addition, Trentham is permanently enjoined from infringing
Monsanto's patents for biotechnology [05/13/02].
M
Monsanto Company
Meise & McMorris
Tuggle, Mike; Mischa Maximilhaan Bastin MO
3/19/03
5:03-CV-
06033-SOW
Western District of
Missouri Judge Scott
This case was settled and dismissed voluntarily 5/9/2003, A
X
Monsanto Company
White, Wayne Douglas, Ronnie Edward White; NC
11/6/00
00-CV-1761
O. Wright
Eastern District of
Final CONSENT Injunction and JUDGEMENT for plaintiff in the amount 115,000.00
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Thompson Coburn; Bryan Cave
LLP
Edwin Akers, Melanie King
Missouri Rodney W.
Sippel
of $115,000.00 [09/07/01].
Monsanto Company
White, Michael, Wayne White, White's Farris Feed & Seed, Inc.; AL
10/15/03
03-CV-2804
µ4 Northern District of
µ Ongoing as of 11/29/04; Consent Motion for entry of preliminary
Bradley' Arant Rose & White;
White's Seed Cleaning;
Alabamm Harwell G.
injunction filed 4/13/04,
Frilot Part ridge Kohnke &
Clements LC
R. Don Ward
Davis Ill
Monsanto Cornparry
Willis, Kenneth, Carl Willis & Sons, Inc.; IL
12/14/01
01-CV-1963
Eastern District of
Monsanto initially demanded $75,000 in damages. Parties reached a A
Husch and Eppenberger, LLC;
Dale Aschemann
Missouri Frederick R.
mutually agreeable settlement regarding issues involved in this lawsuit
Thompson Coburn; Bryan Cave
LLP
Buckles
[7/8/02],
Monsanto Company
Wyatt Tarrant & Combs; Frilot
Wood, James; Jim Waide TIN
11/30/00
00-CV-3142
Western District of
Tennessee Avern
Judgement: plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on patent N/A
infringement claims is granted; defendant's motion for partial summary
Partridge Kohnke & Clements
Cohn
judgment on anti-trust & affirmative defenses claims is denied; the case
is remanded to Bankruptcy Court [03/11/03],
SOURCE: All information included
in these charts w" derived from court documents in the
public record (PACER: http://Pacer.uApci.uAcourt.A.gov)
and CFS interviews with farmers and
their legal representation.
Jh, Settlement reached; amount not disclosed
Terms of dismissal, including possible financial settlements, not disclosed
On-going Cases