Kansas Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Rogue GMO Wheat

Kansas Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Rogue GMO Wheat

www.farms.com

A Kansas farmer is suing Monsanto after the discovery of unlicensed genetically modified wheat growing in Oregon. The producer is claiming that Monsanto’s gross negligence hurt him and other U.S. wheat growers, by driving down wheat prices and raising the alarms of several international buyers, including Japan.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.globalpost.c om
www.nydailynews.com

Monsanto engineered this wheat, and if was being sold they would be
demanding their millions for the seeds!

How ironic that they are now the ones being sued.
Other farmers plan to follow suit.

Problem being for Monsanto there is no approval for GM Wheat
growing in the U.S., so it is considered contamination.

Problem being for us, who knows how much of the wheat is contaminated,
and for the farmers this has caused injury due to huge loss of income this harvest,
and likely future harvests!

U.S. Agriculture Department officials said last Wednesday that the modified wheat was the same strain as one designed by Monsanto to be herbicide-resistance that was tested in Oregon and several other states through 2005 but never approved. The USDA has said the Oregon wheat is safe to eat and there is no evidence that modified wheat entered the marketplace.

It's believed to be the first lawsuit stemming from the discovery. Similar lawsuits are in the works, Barnes' attorney said, and the cases will likely be consolidated for the purposes of discovery, a process where evidence is investigated and shared among parties.

www.globalpost.com...


This statement from Monsanto:

Monsanto’s vice president and general counsel David Snively released a statement Tuesday, which said "Tractor-chasing lawyers have prematurely filed suit without any evidence of fault and in advance of the crop's harvest”. Snively concludes by saying that Monsanto will present a vigorous defense.

Well, other countries have rejected Oregon wheat from imports,
and U.S. grown wheat due to the possible contamination regardless,
so this is hardly premature!

Monsanto needs a good setback.

Lets hope this is it.


www.farms.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So, lets sum up here:

1. Monsanto created and patented a GM wheat strain that is resistant to insecticides (Specifically, Monsanto Round-Up)
2. Monsanto own all rights to this GM wheat, and any seeds that contain this GM DNA.
3. This Monsanto patented GM wheat has not been cleared by the FDA to grow outside of the controlled area within Monsanto.
4. It has been confirmed that some of this GM wheat has been found growing in a farmer's field in Oregon (confirmed fact)
5. It has been suggested (I have seen no facts or confirmations yet) that other cases of this GM wheat has been discovered growing in other states since 2005.
6. Monsanto, sole owners of this product, are claiming no knowledge of how this GM wheat, that they claim to fully control both product and patent.
7. Farmer sues Monsanto for contamination of his crop, as well as the resulting economic impact of future wheat sales by countries that have explicitly banned Monsanto GM crops.
8. Monsanto threatens legal ramifications and claims its a frivolous lawsuit.

Wow, just wow.

This is equivalent to a major corporation found contaminating the groundwater supply. It should he dealt with as such, IMO. Perhaps Monsanto needs to get their house in order, and review their procedures on controlling their unlicensed product?

reply to post by burntheships


It doesn't mention how much they are asking for?

If it were my farm I'd be irate and ask for a lot of money.

USDA is in Monsanto's pocket for sure though. As if we doubted it...

Of course, the USDA and Monsanto (and the usual GM pundits) were quick to mount a rearguard defense, highlighting the fact that there is no evidence that modified wheat entered the food chain. Even if this had occurred, we are told, the USDA has already deemed this RoundUp Ready GM wheat as “safe” to eat.

Link

-SAP-

reply to post by Krakatoa


Yes, that this was tested in 2005 is one key.

Though never formally approved for farming in the U.S., Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant wheat was tested in more than 100 fields in 16 states through 2005, when the company abandoned its pursuit of government approval.

www.nydailynews.com...

I hope the farmers unite, and take this company down big time by way of profits.

reply to post by burntheships


I find it humorous that their lawyer's name is Snively.

Monsanto is scum, it is also funny that they act like anyone considers them as anything other than scum. I have yet to meet someone with a favorable opinion of that company.

reply to post by burntheships


I hope the rest of Oregon's farmers join the law suit, to plant unapproved wheat outdoors, to me could be a form of genocide. They tried to argue that it was safe over here, birds can carry the seed, wind certainly can. Did they crop the wheat, really what chance was there that this wouldn't spread?

The FDA needs disbanding also, put a new agency in place that actually enforces protection of the environment and peoples health. Perhaps they could be given a budget, from government from a tax levied on Monsanto, to actually test these GMO's. Rather then receive fees and pre written results direct from Monsanto for the FDA to rubber stamp.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


My thoughts, they are still calculating the damages.
Several U.S. trading partners wont allow GMO, crops.
Half of the U.S. wheat crop is exported 9 billion in revenue.
I expect the amount will be huge.

Here is the part that really burns

In a recent report, the Center for Food Safety found that as of December, Monsanto had filed 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses, winning more than $23 million in judgments.

www.nydailynews.com...

So Monsanto goes about sueing the little farmers and has netted more than 23 million....
Other countries reject this GMO, they have to make a profit somewhere.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

I hope the farmers unite, and take this company down big time by way of profits.

I hope so too. As a matter of fact I found this alliance of farmers in, what I assume is the UK. They are asking for more trials on the wheat.

An alliance of 27 organisations has called for more transparency about the aims of the GM wheat trial.

Link

-SAP-

reply to post by burntheships


In addition to taking away the patent on this GM product from Monsanto. It is clear they cannot control it responsibly, and therefore, cannot defend its use if they can't control it spreading. If it is not revoked, then Monsanto is within their legal rights to sue every farmer where their patented product is discovered growing (for patent infringement). Monsanto can, in effect, sue them into bankruptcy, take their farm, and expand their bottom line.

Or was that the plan all along?

reply to post by burntheships


Another example of the fecal matter that is Monsanto.

Suing the small farmers for what amounts to pocket change for them (they probably spent more on their lawyers than they won), but is a huge loss to those farmers.

Too bad a meteor hasn't landed on their headquarters....

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by burntheships

 

I find it humorous that their lawyer's name is Snively.

How fitting his name.
Could not overlook that, and his snide comments about "tractor chasing" farmers.

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by burntheships

 

The FDA needs disbanding also, put a new agency in place that actually enforces protection of the environment and peoples health.

Indeed, I noticed that the USDA claims this wheat is safe, how do they know?
If it was so safe, why was it not given approval? I think they are full of it.
Its not safe, and they know it.

Originally posted by burntheships
The producer is claiming that Monsanto’s gross negligence hurt him and other U.S. wheat growers, by driving down wheat prices

And fair enough too.
Its about time people started attacking Monsanto for the things they have actually done, as opposed to the usual nonsense.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Possibly, wait and see if Monsanto files a counter suit.
That will be telling....

I think its gross negligence on the part of The USDA, they are the ones
that should also put the brakes on Monsanto, but they are in bed together.

Political bed fellows, a nice to say it....

The fact that this was tested in 2005 and its now 2013 is suspicious.

Think about it, 8 years later so where has the fresh seed come from?

Hmmmm......

reply to post by burntheships


Oh yeah for sure they know it's not safe. You can tell when you read their statement from their mouthpiece... "There's no science to prove it's harmful..." No there is, you just buy up the data and bury it. Monsanto is good at that.

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful


Good for them, sad that The U.S is one of the few that allows this poison to be grown,
and then tries to export it. What occurs to me, along with the dangers in human consumption
there are other issues that are economically unwise in allowing GMO as an import.

As it is shown to be harmful to the bee populations, also once seed is contaminated,
the farmer then becomes a target for Monsantos patent suits, and then the entire
crop is in danger of GMO contamination. If it is never allowed in as an import problem solved.

Surely this is one of Monsantos strategies, ask Snively.

reply to post by burntheships

As it is shown to be harmful to the bee populations,

No, it hasn't.

also once seed is contaminated,
the farmer then becomes a target for Monsantos patent suits

Got any examples of that? It's been in court. Sort of. A case against Monsanto was dismissed because they never have done so and have no intention of doing so.

These unsubstantiated claims do not carry significant weight, given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.6

The statement is an expression of defendants’ intention not to pursue their patent rights against certain farmers. Yet plaintiffs want the Court to read the statement not as a limitation on whom defendants will sue, but rather as a positive indication of whom defendants will bring suit against. No such inference is permissible.

www.nysd.uscourts.gov...
The case of the OP may turn out differently though.

Surely this is one of Monsantos strategies, ask Snively

Can you explain that strategy in a little detail please?

reply to post by Phage


There is a lot of evidence that shows this, many posted here on previous threads.
If you want proof, you know where to look.

If you want to rebut it, you show me how my statement is incorrect.

reply to post by burntheships

It has not been shown that GMO crops are harmful to bee populations. I've seen the claim. But no evidence.