It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
....These guys are more than willing to fight dirty. I think they would go so far as to hire mercenaries in fact to harass the plaintiffs if they felt that was necessary....
....Here’s what typically happens to US farmers who fall under suspicion of planting saved seed. Private investigators from the Pinkerton agency hired by Monsanto arrive on the farm without warning, sometimes accompanied by local police. They then proceed to take samples and photographs over the course of a few hours to a few weeks, without the farmer being present.
One Mississippi farmer who runs a farm shop from his farmhouse was subjected to constant surveillance by Monsanto investigators who watched the family coming and going, warned off customers, and even rented an empty lot across the street from where to position their cameras.
Monsanto used entrapment to file a lawsuit against another farmer, when one of their investigators begged seeds from him to help solve an erosion problem too late in the season to plant crops. If personal intimidation fails, Monsanto resorts to another violation of privacy by sending a registered letter threatening to "tie the farmer up in court for years" if he refuses to settle out of court for patent infringement. One farmer who challenged this intimidation had his name blacklisted on thousands of seed dealers’ lists. He concedes, "It is easier to give into them than it is to fight them."
A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.
In 1999, The Washington Post reported that the number of farmers under investigation in US and Canada was 525. A later report confirmed that Monsanto was investigating 500 farmers in 2004 "as they do every year." Once a farmer agrees to settle out of court he may be forced to present all documents relating to farm activity within 24 hours of request, purchase a specific quantity of company product and disclose the names of other people that have saved company seed.... www.i-sis.org.uk...
Can you imagine what the plight of the humans will be after few generations....
Here's your list of grassroots NonGmo seeds,...
I do found americans to be rather weird sometimes...
(n) Case Law is the decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them which are considered as the common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions. Case laws are used by advocates to support their views to favor their clients and also it influence the decision of the judges. www.legal-explanations.com...
Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system--that is, the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. For example, the California Supreme Court decision that unmarried people who live together may enter into cohabitation agreements (Marvin v. Marvin), is binding on all appellate courts and trial courts in California (which are lower courts in relation to the California Supreme Court). Similarly, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest court in the country) are generally binding on all other courts in the U.S.
Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed.
As a practical matter, courts can usually find precedent for any direction they want to go in deciding a particular case. Accordingly, precedent is used as often to justify a particular outcome in a case as it is to guide the decision.The body of judicial decisions in which were formulated the points of law arising in any case. A previously decided case that is considered binding in the court where it was issued and in all lower courts in the same jurisdiction. A court decision in an earlier case with facts and law similar to a dispute currently before a court. Precedent will ordinarily govern the decision of a later similar case, unless a party can show that it was wrongly decided or that it differed in some significant way..... www.lectlaw.com...
Who's making the bread?
Freedom to Farm's lower commodity prices have not translated into consumer benefits.
Since 1984, the real price of a USDA market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent,according to C. Robert Taylor, professor of agriculture and public policy at Auburn University. Taylor says there is a "widening gap" between retail price and farm value for numerous components of the market basket, including meat products, poultry, eggs, dairy products, cereal and bakery products, fresh fruit and vegetables, and processed fruit and vegetables.
At a major farm rally in Washington, D.C. in March, farmers served legislators a "farmers" lunch. The lunch included what would typically be an $8 lunch -- barbecued beef on a bun, baked beans, potato salad, coleslaw, milk and a cookie. The farmers charged only 39 cents for the meal, reflecting what farmers and ranchers receive to grow the food for such a meal.
‘‘(2) EXEMPTION.—A qualified facility—
‘‘(A) shall not be subject to the requirements under subsections (a) through (i) and subsection (n) in an applicable calendar year; and
‘‘(B) shall submit to the Secretary—
‘‘(i)(I) documentation that demonstrates that the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being produced, is implementing preventive controls to address the hazards, and is monitoring the preventive controls to ensure that such controls are effective;
‘‘(II) documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as a State department of agriculture), or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary, that the facility is in compliance with State, local, county, or other applicable non-Federal food safety law; and
‘‘(ii) documentation, as specified by the Secretary in a guidance document issued not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, that the facility is a qualified facility under paragraph (1)(B) or (1)(C).
‘‘(3) WITHDRAWAL; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the event of an active investigation of a foodborne illness out-break that is directly linked to a qualified facility subject to an exemption under this sub- section, or if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to protect the public health and prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak based on conduct or conditions associated with a qualified facility that are material to the safety of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at such facility, the Secretary may with-draw the exemption provided to such facility under this subsection.
‘‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing
11 in this subsection shall be construed to expand
12 or limit the inspection authority of the Sec-
19 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED END-USER.—The term
20 ‘qualified end-user’, with respect to a food,
22 ‘‘(i) the consumer of the food; or
23 ‘‘(ii) a restaurant or retail food estab-
24 lishment (as those terms are defined by the
13 ‘‘(C) CONSUMER.—For purposes of sub-
14 paragraph (B), the term ‘consumer’ does not
15 include a business.
On page 18, strike line 1 through line 5 and insert
3 the following: ‘‘regulations—
4 ‘‘(A) to establish science-based minimum
5 standards for conducting a hazard analysis,
6 documenting hazards, implementing preventive
7 controls, and documenting the implementation
8 of the preventive controls under this section;
10 ‘‘(B) to define, for purposes of this section,
11 the terms ‘small business’ and ‘very small busi-
12 ness’, taking into consideration the study de-
13 scribed in subsection (l)(5).
Food Safety’s Scorched Earth Policy
HR 2749 is being rushed through Congress, and the house may look to suspend the rules and fast track the bill at Obama’s request. Just what can we expect from this legislation? A lot more of the following:
Dick Peixoto planted hedges of fennel and flowering cilantro around his organic vegetable fields in the Pajaro Valley near Watsonville to harbor beneficial insects, an alternative to pesticides.
He has since ripped out such plants in the name of food safety, because his big customers demand sterile buffers around his crops. No vegetation. No water. No wildlife of any kind.
“I was driving by a field where a squirrel fed off the end of the field, and so 30 feet in we had to destroy the crop,” he said. “On one field where a deer walked through, didn’t eat anything, just walked through and you could see the tracks, we had to take out 30 feet on each side of the tracks and annihilate the crop.”
In the verdant farmland surrounding Monterey Bay, a national marine sanctuary and one of the world’s biological jewels, scorched-earth strategies are being imposed on hundreds of thousands of acres in the quest for an antiseptic field of greens. And the scheme is about to go national. (Lochhead, C. )
The question that must be asked is, do we really want to destroy our local organic farming industry by poisoning ponds, bulldozing crops and killing wildlife all in the name of food safety?Â
Recently someone asked why I thought that the current food safety legislation would jeopardize organic farming. This is why! People who have no idea what it is to farm, and are in collusion with large corporate food producers, buyers, and sellers, draft legislation that is intolerable to the environment and our health, all in the name of food safety, in order to promote corporate profit.Â
Not one instance in 16 years of handling nearly every major food-borne illness outbreak in America, has Seattle trial lawyer Bill Marler had a case where it’s been linked to a farmers’ market” (Marler, B.). Yet, farmer's markets and local organic food growers who sell at these markets are included in this legislation, and factory farming scorched earth methods are forced on them....
The requirements of this bill would put small farmers out of business entirely, but this is not the only threat to the little guy.
Large produce buyers have compiled secret “super metrics” that go much further. Farmers must follow them if they expect to sell their crops. These can include vast bare-dirt buffers, elimination of wildlife, and strict rules on water sources. To enforce these rules, retail buyers have sent forth armies of food-safety auditors, many of them trained in indoor processing plants, to inspect fields. (Lochhead, C.)
Most of these inspectors have little to no experience other than inside four walls. Take for example Ken Kimes, who owns New Natives Farms in Santa Cruz County. He was told that "no children younger than five can be allowed on his farm for fear of diapers" (Lochhead, C.)....
(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such
B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense.
(1) OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 301) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
(2) OFFENSE RESULTING IN DEATH- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in death, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
... each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water
include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal's health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption
Traceability techniques can provide additional guarantees as to the origin, type or organoleptic quality of food products.” www.oie.int...
"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ...have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary [SPS] Measures...Aims to ensure THAT GOVERNMENTS DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as UNJUSTIFIED TRADE BARRIERS... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability as an SPS measure."
“One of the big goals of NAIS is to shift liability to the farmers and off of the packers and retail chains. This is despite the fact that virtually all food contamination happens at the slaughterhouse and beyond.” nonais.org...
“You [the farmer] will be required to cover ALL expenses in the event of contamination...The bottom line is that after 10 years [note the date] of below normal prices here in Wis because the state allowed Equity Livestock Coop to create a monopoly, our savior has now arrived to burden us with contracts shifting all liability to feeder cattle producers if they can’t prove they are innocent. “ SOURCE
Conference to address food-borne illness litigation
“The conference will cover topics such as aligning damage assessments/expectations with the outcomes from recent resolved litigation; managing an outbreak effectively to minimize shareholder and reputational risk afterwards as quickly as possible; and how to measure and prove actual control of various players in the movement of contaminated food to accurately assess apportionment of liability....
Unfortunately, Monsanto has expendable cash and men they hire just to show up at court everyday. This will drain the farmers.These guys are no strangers to court anyway.They have experience.The Rockefellers and the like are funding these guys anyway....
Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I suspect the only real functional weapon against Monsanto will be direct action.
Not that I'd condone anything like that.
In fact it will be an OOPS kinda moment when we have allowed this to happen and have done nothing to stop it when all of a sudden there are no seeds left.....
I suspect the only real functional weapon against Monsanto will be direct action.....