The World According to Monsanto: the new film

From the Institute for Responsible Technology

 

Formal release of this chilling documentary is scheduled for fall, 2008 with public showings around the nation, but the film is now available as a pre-publication release.

Monsanto’s controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer (and patent) the world’s food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment, and economy. Combining secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, this widely praised film exposes why Monsanto has become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. 109 minutes

“Devastating exposé . . . Will freeze the blood in your veins”—The Gazette

“Extraordinary documentary”  —LeMonde

“Scrupulous, thorough, and damning” —Montreal Mirror

 

“Presents a cogent and horrifying enough picture of the world’s leading seed manufacturer to warrant concern and fury.” —Hour

 

Editor’s Note: We are waiting for our copy.

David vs. Goliath (aka Monsanto): an appeal is made to the U.S. Supreme Court

By Lisa M. Brownlee

Centre Daily

David v. Monsanto is the latest of many lawsuits against farmers (in this case, Lauren David) by Monsanto.

Monsanto is the owner of the patented herbicide Roundup and the also-patented Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant seed. At issue in this case is David’s right to plant Roundup Ready soybean seeds that he produced from plants grown from Roundup Ready seeds he purchased from Monsanto.

David lost the case, both at trial and at the federal circuit, and was fined $786,989. Last week, David appealed to the Supreme Court. Presently, farmers must buy Monsanto seed annually to grow a Roundup Ready crop.

Some experts believed that a recent Supreme Court ruling on “patent exhaustion” indicated that the Supreme Court would grant David’s appeal (if patent exhaustion was the issue presented on appeal). “Patent exhaustion” means that the “first sale” of the patent seed “exhausts” the patent owner’s rights. Under this doctrine, Monsanto could not prevent use of its seed after the first sale.

David did not request the Supreme Court to consider the exhaustion doctrine because he did not believe the earlier ruling to be applicable because Monsanto’s license agreement restricts use of the seed — distinguishing his client’s case from the case at hand. Some patent experts believe the Supreme Court will therefore deny the appeal. David’s lawyer strenuously disagrees.

The result? Monsanto’s right to prevent farmers from planting herbicide resistant seeds they grow from Monsanto-patented seeds will remain in place until another suitable case makes its way through the court system. This could take decades. David’s lawyer informs me that $7.25 of the $21 cost of one “unit” of Roundup Ready seed is attributable to the Monsanto “technology fee.”

Monsanto did not respond to my calls for current price structure. According to the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has collected more than $21 million from farmers for seed piracy, with one farmer paying more than $3 million.

Several local farmers use Monsanto-patented seed. Todd Irvin, a Ferguson Township soybean producer, says he plants roughly 370 acres of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean. Penn State also grows patent-protected seed from a variety of companies, including Monsanto, Pioneer, and Syngenta, according to Dennis Calvin, Penn State professor and associate director of cooperative extension.

Both said that first-generation Monsanto seed has beneficial traits other than herbicide resistance that provide incentives for farmers to not produce their own seed. Monsanto’s seeds and genomics made up 70 percent of the company’s 2007 gross profits.

If the Supreme Court denies David’s appeal as expected, Monsanto’s profits will remain unchallenged.

Editor’s Note: We do not understand how Monsanto’s patent can stand up based on common-sense, practical criteria. Their patented materials RE-PRODUCE THEMSELVES. It is not a matter of ANOTHER FIRM reproducing a design. Seeds re-produce themselves. In addition, seeds are transported by agents that are out of the control of the patent purchaser and the non-patent purchaser. Wind, bees, birds, humans — all of these can deposit a patented seed on someone’s land, and yet that unfortunate someone can be sued? This is just not just, rational, logical, or common-sense. We urge the Supreme Court to accept this appeal and strike down the patent technology agreement … for being ridiculous.