Center for Food Safety Release

Billings Gazette 1-14-05
Monsanto suing farmers over biotechnology piracy issues
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan McFarling in 1999, and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy.

McFarling's sin? He saved seed from one harvest and replanted it the following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice.

"My daddy saved seed. I saved seed," said McFarling, 62, who still grows soybeans on the 5,000-acre family farm in Mississippi and is fighting the agribusiness giant in court.

Saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company's contracts with farmers.

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times in 25 states against 147 farmers and 39 agriculture companies, according to a report issued Thursday by The Center for Food Safety, a biotechnology foe.

In a similar case a year ago, Tennessee farmer Kem Ralph was sued by Monsanto and sentenced to eight months in prison after he was caught lying about a truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.

Ralph's prison term is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked to Monsanto's crackdown. Ralph has also been ordered to pay Monsanto more than $1.7 million.

The company itself says it annually investigates about 500 "tips" that farmers are illegally using its seeds and settles many of those cases before a lawsuit is filed.

In this way, Monsanto is attempting to protect its business from pirates in much the same way the entertainment industry does when it sues underground digital distributors exploiting music, movies and video games.

In the process, it has turned farmer on farmer and sent private investigators into small towns to ask prying questions of friends and business acquaintances.

Monsanto's licensing contracts and litigation tactics are coming under increased scrutiny as more of the planet's farmland comes under genetically engineered cultivation.

Some 200 million acres of the world's farms grew biotech crops last year, an increase of 20 percent from 2003, according to a separate report released Wednesday.

Many of the farmers Monsanto has sued say, as McFarling claims, that they didn't read the company's technology agreement close enough. Others say they never received an agreement in the first place.

The company counters that it sues only the most egregious violations and is protecting the 300,000 law-abiding U.S. farmers who annually pay a premium for its technology. Soy farmers, for instance, pay a "technology fee" of about $6.50 an acre each year.

Some 85 percent of the nation's soy crop is genetically engineered to resist Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, a trait many farmers say makes it easier to weed their fields and ultimately cheaper to grow their crops.

"It's a very efficient and cost-effective way to raise soy beans and that's why the market has embraced it," said Ron Heck, who grows 900 acres of genetically engineered soy beans in Perry, Iowa.

Heck, who is also chairman of the American Soybean Association, said he doesn't mind buying new seed each year and appreciates Monsanto's crackdown on competitors who don't pay for their seed.

"You can save seed if you want to use the old technology," Heck said.

The company said the licensing agreement protects its more than 600 biotech-related patents and ensures a return on its research and development expenses, which amount to more than $400 million annually.

"We have to balance our obligations and our responsibilities to our customers, to our employees and to our shareholders," said Scott Baucum, Monsanto's chief intellectual property protector.

Still, Monsanto's investigative tactics are sowing seeds of fear and mistrust in some farming communities, company critics say.

Monsanto encourages farmers to call a company hotline with piracy tips, and private investigators in its employ act on leads with visits to the associates of suspect farmers.

The Center for Food Safety established its own hot line Thursday where farmers getting sued can receive aid. It also said it hopes to convene a meeting among defense lawyers to develop legal strategies to fight Monsanto.

The company said it has gone to trial five times and has never lost a legal fight against an accused pirate. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 allowed for the patenting of genetically engineered life forms and extended the same protections to altered plants in 2001. Earlier this year, a Washington D.C. federal appeals court specifically upheld Monsanto's license.

+ INVESTORS CHALLENGE MONSANTO OVER GM RISKS 20/1/2005

1. Introduction from GMWatch
2. Media Release from report authors
3. The report

1. A shareholder resolution asks Monsanto to report on impacts related to
its GM products. Shareholders see untested and under-reported environmental
impacts as the biggest risk.

"Major market rejection and sudden business strategy reversals raise doubt
that Monsanto is properly evaluating the risks of its genetically
engineered products," said Michael Passoff.

Some of the major business strategy reversals that took investors by
surprise include: Monsanto's decision to not commercialize GM wheat despite
spending $60 million on it in 2004 alone; the cancellation of plans to
develop pharmaceutical crops; forsaking its operations in Argentina despite
90 percent market penetration of GM soya; and suspending investment in GM
canola in Australia.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4819

ooooOOOOoooo

2. Investors Challenge Monsanto Over Risks Of Genetically Engineered Products

An impressively argued, and carefully referenced, indictment of Monsanto
filed by a series of religious communities who are mostly part of a
coalition of 300 religious institutional investors and socially responsible
investment firms with more than $150 billion in combined assets.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shareholder Resolution Calls for Reporting Impacts of Biotech Products

St. Louis - Jan 20, 2005 - A shareholder resolution to be voted on
Thursday, January 20, asks Monsanto (MON- NYSE) to report on impacts
related to its genetically engineered products.

"Major market rejection and sudden business strategy reversals raise doubt
that Monsanto is properly evaluating the risks of its genetically
engineered products," said Michael Passoff, of the As You Sow Foundation.
" In the last 14 months Monsanto has had to abandon plans to commercialize
its most important future product, its most important future area of
research, and the country with its highest level of market penetration."

Some of the major business strategy reversals that took investors by
surprise include: Monsanto's decision to not commercialize genetically
engineered wheat despite spending $60 million on it in 2004 alone; the
cancellation of its plans to develop pharmaceutical crops; forsaking its
operations in Argentina despite 90 percent market penetration of
genetically engineered soya; and suspending its investment in genetically
engineered canola in Australia.

Shareholders see untested and underreported environmental impacts as
perhaps the biggest risk. "Contamination of conventional crops by
genetically engineered crops is happening," said Sister Susan Jordan,
coordinator of the Midwest Coalition for Responsible Investment. "Even
Monsanto's annual report recognizes the removal of genetically engineered
seed and products may be necessary, yet the company offers no contingency
plan to address it."

"There are a significant number of scientific studies that challenge
Monsanto's claims of safety and benefits," added Jordan. "Food is not
merely another market commodity; it is essential to life and sacred
culturally to all peoples. We believe that agricultural genetic engineering
has not demonstrated that it safeguards the common good, human dignity, and
the natural and social systems that sustain life for our time and for the
future. Monsanto needs to be responsible, accountable, and socially just."

Recent reports by the National Academy of Science, Environmental Protection
Agency, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Food Safety,
among others, raise warnings about extensive crop contamination, increased
pest resistance, increased herbicide use, impacts on non-target
populations. Furthermore, the reports identify serious gaps in testing
methodologies, the regulatory approval process, and a lack of oversight
once products are commercialized.

"The biggest misperception about genetically engineered crops is that the
FDA has tested these plants and declared them safe," added Passoff. "What
the FDA has done is approved genetically engineered crop commercialization
based on Monsanto's assurance that the products are safe. The FDA does no
testing of its own nor does it monitor these products after they are
commercialized. Monsanto and its shareholders are responsible for all legal
and financial liabilities."

"As the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, Monsanto
faces unique business risks," said Marc Brammer, Senior Analyst of Innovest
Strategic Value Advisors. "These risks require a detailed assessment by
management and reporting to shareholders." Innovest has just released the
most in-depth look at Monsanto's financial risk from genetically engineered
products. The report warns shareholders about hidden risks to Monsanto's
profitability and points out that Monsanto's stock price is likely
overvalued compared to its actual earnings.

"A sound balance sheet, bullish marketing of Ag biotech potential, and the
perception that many big litigation risks were behind it, has pushed
Monsanto's share price to all-time highs," added Brammer, "but Wall
Street's bullishness is not reflected in actual earnings as seen in the
high PE ratio of over 70. Significant risks to financial performance remain
un-examined in Monsanto's business plan and are not properly reflected in
current stock market valuations."

Among the key findings of the report are:

*the potential costs of contamination of conventional seed with
biotechnology traits is not delineated properly for investors by
management;

*the lack of regulatory oversight is not acknowledged as a business risk
since liability remains with Monsanto once genetically engineered crops are
commercialized;

*ambitious profit targets do not reflect political and economic realities
facing genetically engineered crops with respect to consumer acceptance and
commercialization;

*reliance on litigation to "capture value" and fend off competitors is not
fully acknowledged in the business plan, or accounted for in SEC filings;
and

*regular appearance of "Extraordinary Charges" on the balance sheet as a
result of environmental litigation costs and restructuring charges imply
that such costs will likely continue to be burdensome.

The shareholder proposal was filed by School Sisters of Notre Dame of St.
Louis; Sisters of Mercy Regional Community of St. Louis; St. Mary's
Institute (Sisters of the Most Precious Blood), O'Fallon, MO; Sisters of
St. Joseph of Carondelet; Sisters of Loretto; Mercy Investment Program;
Sisters of Mercy, Regional Community of Detroit Charitable Trust; Sisters
of the Blessed Sacrament; Sinsinawa Dominicans; Daughters of Charity of
Saint Vincent dePaul, St. Louis; Adrian Dominican Sisters; Sisters of
Charity of Cincinnati; and As You Sow Foundation. Most of the co-filers are
part of a coalition of 300 religious institutional investors and socially
responsible investment firms with more than $150 billion in combined assets.

For more detailed information, the text of the shareholder resolution, and
related financial and scientific reports the on this issue, please visit
http://www.proxyinformation.com

Media Contacts:

Michael Passoff, Associate Director, As You Sow Foundation, (415) 391-3212;
Sister Susan Jordan, Coordinator, Midwest Coalition for Responsible
Investment, (314) 638-5453

ooooOOOOoooo

3. Issue Brief Monsanto

Monsanto Fails To Identify Risks To Investors
http://www.proxyinformation.com/monissue.html

Shareholders are being asked to vote FOR a report describing the scope of
genetically engineered (GE) products, their environmental impacts, a
contingency plan for removing GE products if required, and evidence of
independent safety testing.

Reasons why this proposal deserves your support:

1. Market Rejection and Business Strategy Reversal :

Sudden reversals in Monsanto's business strategies cause doubt that the
company is comprehensively evaluating the risks of genetically engineered
(GE) products sufficiently early in their concept and development and / or
providing investors with adequate information to evaluate the risks of
these products or strategies. Monsanto has:

* Abandoned plans to market its most important future product GE wheat (see
figure 1) despite spending $60 million on it in 2004 alone.
* Abandoned plans to develop its most important future area of research
pharmaceutical crops.
* Abandoned operations in Argentina despite 90% market penetration of GE
soya (this implies that value capture in developing countries is highly
uncertain).
* Suspended its investment in Roundup Ready canola in Australia.
* Cut production of its flagship product rBGH by 50% in the US for most of
2004

Find at: http://www.proxyinformation.com/monissue.html

Figure 1 -State of Market Acceptance and Non-Acceptance of GE Wheat,
Canadian Wheat Board (2002).

2. Resistance and Competition:

Identifying the scope of GE products is needed to evaluate which products
may be vulnerable to environmental risk or competition from new non-GE
technologies.

* Studies show evidence of increasing resistance to Monsanto's chief
product Roundup/ Glyphosate.
* Instances of Roundup resistant crops include: ragweed, morning
glories, hairy fleabane (2004); Italian ryegrass, Buckhorn Plantain (2003);
Rigid ryegrass, Horseweed (2000).
* In December 2004, 10 university weed scientists issued a statement
saying that since 2000, Roundup resistant horseweed has increased from one
reported field in Delaware to 11 additional states so far; infesting over
1.5 million acres in Tennessee alone.
* Competitors are developing herbicide resistant and other crops
without using recombinant DNA thus likely avoiding market or public
opposition. These new technologies may make much of Monsanto's GE
infrastructure of dubious value.
* Marker-assisted breeding can accomplish many of the goals of GE,
such as drought tolerance, without the market hurdles.
* Directed mutagenesis can create herbicide-resistant and other
crops. Two companies are developing new crops that can challenge Monsanto's
Roundup Ready crops.

3. Contamination (Adventitious Presence):

Monsanto's Opposition Statement fails to address the shareholders concern
over contamination and contingency plans. Yet its 10K - which refers to
contamination as "adventitious presence," provides just one (but highly
significant) paragraph that tells a very different story - one that could
affect the very heart of the company's business.

"Concern about adventitious presence could lead to increased regulation,
which may include: requirements for labeling and traceability; liability
transfer mechanisms which may include financial protection insurance; and
possible restrictions or moratoria on testing, planting or use of
biotechnology traits".

Monsanto 2004 10K

Echoing the need for environmental risk reporting, new 2004 governmental,
university, and NGO studies added to the growing documentation of
contamination by GE crops:

* A National Academy of Science report on "Biological Confinement of
Genetically Engineered Organisms" found that preventing contamination of
non-GE crops or wild relatives by GE was not possible in most cases with
current technology.
* A EPA study showed that GE turf grass had a much greater extent of
contamination then Monsanto had predicted. The resulting first-ever full
Environmental Impact Statement on a GE crop, currently in process at USDA,
and opposition from the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
may scuttle this product.
* A Union of Concerned Scientists study "Gone to Seed" found that GE
DNA is contaminating US seeds of corn, soybeans and canola.
* The organic and conventional papaya industry in Hawaii and Thailand
reported widespread contamination from Monsanto's GE papaya.

4. Contingency Plans:

Contamination is happening and even Monsanto's 10K recognizes that the
removal of GE seed and products may be necessary. Yet the company offers no
contingency plan to address it.

"The detection of adventitious presence of traits not approved in the
country where detected may result in the withdrawal of seed lots from sale,
or in compliance actions such as crop destruction or product recalls."

Monsanto 2004 10K

* Regulatory agencies are not responsible for developing a
contingency plan nor financially responsible for cleaning up
contamination.
* The 2000 GE StarLink and 2002 GE ProdiGene crop contaminations
provide market examples that ecological contamination and financial risk
are for real. StarLink cost Aventis over $1 billion and ProdiGene was
almost put out of business. A similar StarLink size impact on Monsanto's
balance sheet would equal a $3.79 loss per share (see figure 2).

Find at: http://www.proxyinformation.com/monissue.html

Figure 2: Potential financial fallout from contamination - the StarLink
scenario. Innovest Strategic Financial Advisors (2005)

5. The Real Role of Regulatory Agencies:

Monsanto repeatedly states that GE products are reviewed by regulatory
agencies. Understanding these agencies role is central to understanding the
issue of liability. The biggest misperception about GE crops is that the
FDA has tested these plants and declared them safe. What the FDA has done
is approved GE crop commercialization based on Monsanto's assurance that
the products are safe.

* The FDA is responsible for food and feed products. It does not
apply mandatory or binding regulations for GE crops and relies on a system
of voluntary consulting wherein Monsanto tells the FDA the product is safe.
The FDA does no inspection or monitoring for GE food after it is
commercialized and is not legally or financially liable for these products.
* The EPA only regulates pesticide GE genes and proteins - in this
case the Bt gene. Its review process does not cover the full scope of
impacts and risks of the GE plant. It i s not responsible and does not
test, monitor or regulate herbicide resistant plants, which account for the
majority of GE crops.
* The USDA only has mandatory testing to see if a crop is invasive or
has plant pest characteristics . It does not have the authority to evaluate
the potential health impacts of the GE crop, or of conventional crops that
become contaminated with experimental traits. It is not responsible for
monitoring or enforcement of commercialized GE crops.

6. Independent Testing:

Evidence of independent testing affirming the safety of these products is
needed to reassure consumers, address widespread market opposition, and
provide investors with a fuller picture of potential risks.

* One of Monsanto's most consistent claims is that Roundup decreases
pesticide use. Yet the 2004 study "Genetically Engineered Crops and
Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years", reviewed USDA
data and found that the overall volume of pesticides applied to GE corn,
soybeans, and cotton has increased 122.4 million pounds (4%) between 1996
and 2004. Typically the usage of pesticides first falls but then climbs
steadily as resistance increases.
* A National Academy of Science report on the "Safety of Genetically
Engineered Foods, Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects"
identified sizable gaps in scientific methods to predict and assess
unintended adverse effects.

7. Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements:

As of November 2004, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act:

* Imposes a new duty on CEOs and CFOs to certify that the company has
effective controls in place to ensure that its financial reports " fairly
present" its current and prospective condition.
* Requires information about environmental liabilities and risks from
" known trends and uncertainties" under regulation S-K.
* Does not protect directors who deliberately ignore product safety
or pollution risks; they face personal liability for "pollution securities
claims" sarising out of undisclosed and uninsured environmental
liabilities.

8. Stock Price and Long Term Value:

If these products are so controversial why is the stock doing so well?
Innovest Strategic Value Advisors has just released what is likely the most
in-depth look at the issue of Monsanto and GE Risks for Investors.
www.innovestgroup.com The report points out that Monsanto's stock price is
likely overvalued compared to its actual earnings .

* Monsanto's PE ratio has been over 40 during the latter half of 2004.
* In the last 6 months, 21.9% of the shares held by insiders have
been sold, while only 2.2% of the institutional shares have been sold and
no significant purchases have taken place.
* Investors and media are likely misinterpreting recent stories such
as increases in GE acreage planted (as this does not automatically
translate into increased revenue - which is why Monsanto abandoned
operations in Argentina).
* For the fifth year in a row Monsanto has posted significant
" Extraordinary Charges" averaging $350 million per year over the last 4
years. It faces other large liabilities related to Agent Orange and PCB's
that provides little margin for additional financial risks.

According to the Innovest report shareholders may expect some short-term
stock volatility thus long-term value is the only real value inherent in
the stock. Yet long-term value is likely at risk primarily from a number
of underreported GE risks.

9. Transparency:

Monsanto's 10K broadly outlines profound environmental and financial risks
from GE crops yet its web site and financial reports inadequately addresses
these risk in any substantial way. As Innovest points out:

Significant Risks to Financial Performance Remain Un-examined in Monsanto's
Business Plan and are not properly reflected in current stock market
valuations:

* Potential costs of "adventitious presence", or contamination of
conventional seed with biotechnology traits, is not delineated properly for
investors by management.
* Lack of regulatory oversight is not acknowledged as a business risk
since liability remains with Monsanto once GE crops are commercialized
* Regular appearance of "Extraordinary Charges" on the balance sheet
as a result of environmental litigation costs and restructuring charges
imply that such costs will likely continue to be burdensome.
* Ambitious profit targets do not reflect political and economic
realities facing GE crops with respect to consumer acceptance and
commercialization.
* Reliance on litigation to "capture value" and fend off competitors
is not fully acknowledged in the business plan, or accounted for in SEC
filings.
* Traditional chemical company risks remain a burden despite the
shift to Ag biotech.

"Monsanto & Genetic Engineering: Risk for Investors" Innovest, 2005

10. Accountability:

Monsanto's opposition statement says that these products are proven safe,
efficient, and beneficial to the environment; that they are rigorously
tested; that regulatory agencies provide a safety net; and that Monsanto
provides the public with adequate information. As evident from the
information above, the opposition statement is incomplete or misleading in
several of its assertions.

* There is a significant body of science that challenges Monsanto's
claims of safety & benefits.
* There are numerous governmental and independent scientific reviews
that indicate serious gaps in the regulatory approval process and a lack of
oversight once products are commercialized.
* Regulatory agency review does not make the agencies financially
responsible for these products nor are they responsible for monitoring or
regulating GE herbicide resistant plants after they are commercialized.
* Management now has a duty to capture information about product
safety trends and to investigate potential product risks.
* Monsanto provides a quantity of information, on its web site, but
virtually none relating to environmental and financial risks.
* Monsanto and its shareholders are responsible for all legal and
financial liabilities.

Conclusion: Need for Additional Reporting

As the world's leading producer of GE crops Monsanto faces unique risks;
these risks require a detailed assessment by senior management and the
reporting of that assessment to shareholders.
Major business strategy reversals that took investors by surprise, and the
company's nominal acknowledgement of GE crop contamination in the face of
ever growing scientific and governmental warnings on this issue - show that
management is either unprepared for these market changes or did not divulge
major risks and strategy changes to investors. In either case, improved
risk assessment and greater transparency is required.

28 Jan 2005
Source: just-food.com

A consultation of experts convened at the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) has recommended that any responsible deployment of
genetically modified (GM) crops needs to comprise the whole technology
development process, from the pre-release risk assessment, to biosafety
considerations and post release monitoring.

The FAO said environmental goals must also encompass the maintenance and
protection of basic natural resources such as soil, water and
biodiversity.

"In this way monitoring could become the key element in generating the
necessary knowledge to protect agro-systems, rural livelihoods and
broader ecological integrity," the UN organisation said.

Potential hazards associated with GM crops, according to the scientists,
should be placed within the broader context of both positive and
negative impacts that are associated with all agricultural practices.

The FAO said it is ready to facilitate this process along with other
agencies and national and international research centres, encouraging
the adoption of rigorously designed monitoring programmes.

The consultation was organised in the light of the controversy and
public concern over GM. FAO asked a group of agricultural scientists
from many parts of the world to provide clear preliminary guidelines on
the most accurate and scientifically sound approach to monitoring the
environmental effects of existing GM crops.

"FAO's aim is to provide a tool to assist countries in making their own
informed choices on the matter, as well as protect the productivity and
ecological integrity of farming systems," said Louise Fresco, assistant
director-general of the FAO?s agriculture department.

"The need to monitor both the benefits and potential hazards of released
GM crops to the environment is becoming ever more important with the
dramatic increase in the range and scale of their commercial
cultivation, especially in developing countries," she added.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, February 4, 2005

CONTACT: Amy Shollenberger, Policy Director, Rural Vermont, 802-793-1114; Kevin Dowling, WORC, 406-252-9672; Dena Hoff, 406-687-3645; Todd Leake, DRC, 701-594-4275

Farmer Protection Acts Crop Up in Three States

Farmers Push for Shield from Biotech Crop Liability as States Try to Cope With Genetically Engineered Crops

Billings, Mont. – Farmers in Vermont, Montana, and North Dakota are supporting legislation to make biotechnology companies, not farmers and grain elevators, liable for damages from genetically modified crops. These bills would also prevent the manufacturers from suing farmers whose fields are contaminated by genetically engineered crops and are unintentionally growing these crops.

Legislative committees in Vermont and Montana heard testimony today supporting Farmer Protection Acts. More hearings are scheduled in both states next week for further consideration of the legislation.

A hearing is scheduled next Thursday in North Dakota by the Senate Agriculture Committee on Senate Bill 2235.

Farm advocacy groups across the nation are working with farmers to ensure protection for farmers and by holding companies responsible for any damage caused by their products.

“We've done our homework for Vermont's farmers and our bill is strong and clean. We must make sure that farmers are not bearing the burden for the manufacturers who are marketing a product that is designed to contaminate,” stated Amy Shollenberger, policy director of Rural Vermont. “I am encouraged by the strong support for S.18.”

In Montana, wheat growers lined up to support Senate Bill 218 during a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“If genetically engineered wheat is introduced, this bill will protect farmers from the liabilities associated with this crop resulting from contamination by making sure biotechnology companies are responsible for their product,” said Dena Hoff, a farmer near Glendive, Mont., and representative of the Northern Plains Resource Council.

Hoff cited a recently released study, Monsanto vs. Farmers, by the Center for Food Safety that found that Monsanto has sued or is suing more than 100 farmers for patent infringement. Even farmers who have not planted the seeds are at risk of these lawsuits.

Currently, farmers who buy genetically engineered seeds must sign a Technology Use Agreements. These agreements shield the patent company from liability for contamination and place the full liability burden on farmers. Farmers contend these agreements essentially pit farmer against farmer when conflicts arise.

Farmers are equally concerned about the affects on grain elevators. “Losses to a country elevator for a 400,000 bushel train load of wheat to a west coast port could equal a half-million dollar loss of milling grade, transportation costs, and railroad charges for a train load of wheat sitting idle at the port,” said Todd Leake, a wheat farmer from Grand Forks County, N.D., and member of the Dakota Resource Council. “These losses would bankrupt these country elevators.”

Rural Vermont educates, activates, and advocates for living soils, thriving farms, and healthy communities.

Northern Plains is a grassroots conservation and family agriculture group that organizes Montana citizens to protect water quality, family farms and ranches, and a high quality of life.

The Dakota Resource Council is a grassroots citizens group in North Dakota working for family agriculture and responsible energy development since 1978.

Northern Plains and the Dakota Resource Council are members of WORC (Western Organization of Resource Councils), a grassroots organization of farmers, ranchers, and consumers in seven western states.

BILLINGS GAZETTE
February 6, 2005

Farmers divided over seed liability
Associated Press

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2005/02/06/build/state/50-seed-liability.inc

HELENA - A proposed law making manufacturers of genetically altered
wheat seed liable for damages resulting from the seed's introduction to
Montana brought farmers to the Capitol for a battle of words.

"It will place the liability where it deserves to be," said Sen. Jon
Tester, D-Big Sandy, the bill's sponsor.

Organic farmers and others need protection against genetically
engineered seed that might blow onto their fields, contaminate their
crops and cause them to lose precious markets, said Tester, himself an
organic farmer. His bill must pass "if we're going to maintain the
tradition of family farms continuing to be the economic backbone of this
state," he said Friday.

Opponents, including two of Montana's largest farm groups, said passing
the bill would discourage companies from bringing genetically improved
seed to Montana.

"This bill should be called what it really is," said Jon Stoner, a
Havre-area farmer speaking for the Montana Grain Growers Association.
" It's a moratorium on the development of new technology for Montana."

The testimony unfolded before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will
decide whether to advance the bill. The committee took no action Friday.

Nearly a dozen farmers showed up to testify for the measure, saying they
simply want a shield against fallout from the introduction of
genetically engineered wheat.

Dena Hoff of Glendive said that if a genetically altered crop gets into
an organic farmer's crop, that farmer currently must sue his or her
neighbor to collect damages. The bill would place responsibility on the
manufacturer.

"This (bill) doesn't judge the technology," Hoff said. "It simply says
that the manufacturer of the technology will assume liability."

Organic farmers can demand higher prices for their crops because they
use all-natural production methods, spurning chemicals and genetically
altered seed.

Manufacturers of genetically altered seed now "license" the seeds to a
grower, and often assign liability for damages to the grower through
contract language, proponents of the bill said.

Jeanne Charter, who farms north of Billings, said that without the
protection of Tester's bill, contamination of fields from an altered
crop could end up forcing the grower to "just buckle and become a
contract farmer for Monsanto," a producer of genetically altered seed.

Opponents said passing the bill could put a barrier between Montana
farmers and genetically improved crops, because manufacturers would fear
the liability imposed by the bill.

"It would deny Montana growers leading (grain) varieties in the future,"
said Dan Biggerstaff, vice president of research and development for
WestBred, a plant breeding company in Bozeman. Genetically altered crops
are not some weird, threatening science, but simply an attempt to
develop stronger strains of crops that can help farmers achieve better
yields, he said.

Pam Langley of the Montana Agribusiness Association said no other state
has passed such a bill.

Farmers push for shield from biotech crop liability

By Robert Pore
robert.pore@theindependent.com
Publication Date: 02/06/05

Growing liability concerns about biotech crops have farmers in Vermont, Montana and North Dakota supporting legislation to make biotechnology companies, not farmers and grain elevators, liable for damages from genetically modified crops, according to the Western Organization of Resource Councils.

The legislation would also prevent the manufacturers from suing farmers who are unintentionally growing genetically engineered crops because their fields have been contaminated by crops planted nearby.

Legislative committees in Vermont and Montana have heard testimony supporting Farmer Protection Acts and a hearing has been scheduled for Thursday in North Dakota by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Farm advocacy groups across the nation such as WORC are working with farmers to ensure protection from liability for any damage caused by biotech products.

"If genetically engineered wheat is introduced, this bill will protect farmers from the liabilities associated with this crop resulting from contamination by making sure biotechnology companies are responsible for their product," said Dena Hoff, a farmer near Glendive, Mont., and representative of the Northern Plains Resource Council.

Hoff cited a recently released study, Monsanto vs. Farmers, by the Center for Food Safety that found that Monsanto has sued or is suing more than 100 farmers for patent infringement. Even farmers who have not planted the seeds are at risk of these lawsuits.

Currently, farmers who buy genetically engineered seeds must sign Technology Use Agreements. These agreements shield the patent company from liability for contamination and place the full liability burden on farmers. Farmers contend these agreements essentially pit farmer against farmer when conflicts arise.

Farmers are equally concerned about the effects on grain elevators.

"Losses to a country elevator for a 400,000-bushel train load of wheat to a West Coast port could equal a half-million-dollar loss of milling grade, transportation costs and railroad charges for a train load of wheat sitting idle at the port," said Todd Leake, a wheat farmer from Grand Forks County, N.D., and member of the Dakota Resource Council. "These losses would bankrupt these country elevators."

Click here to return to story:
http://www.theindependent.com/stories/020605/new_biotech06.shtml

© The Grand Island Independent

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/vpr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=735904

Debate continues over liability for genetically engineered seeds
Bob Kinzel

MONTPELIER, VT (2005-02-04)

(Host) Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr says he has serious concerns about legislation that would make manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds liable for damages to nearby organic farms. Kerr says he's worried that the seed manufacturers might withhold their products from Vermont farmers if the Legislature passes the law.

VPR's Bob Kinzel reports.

(Kinzel) In the next two weeks, the Vermont Senate is expected to consider the so-called GE Liability bill. It's legislation that deals with concerns about the use of genetically engineered seeds, particularly for corn and soybean crops.

The bill, which easily passed the Senate last year but died in the House, addresses the issue of liability in the event that pollen drift causes these seeds to be carried to neighboring organic farms.

Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Sarah Kittell says the legislation is needed to protect all farmers in the state and she doesn't want the state's organic food industry to be threatened by these seeds:

(Kittle) "But one of the problems with it is there is consumer-driven marketplace, is that folks do not want the GE technology in the food system - in their food system - and they want to have a choice. There is not a mechanism to control the drift."

(Kinzel) Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr says he has several concerns about this bill. He questions if the legislation is necessary because it's possible that farmers might already be protected under existing consumer laws.

Kerr's key concern is that the bill could have unintended consequences. He's worried that the seed manufacturers might pull their products from Vermont if the law is passed:

(Kerr) "If the companies convincingly say, 'We're going to have to pull our products if you do this,' then that still may be the Legislature's choice. But I want the Legislature to pass this law with its eyes wide open. We've got a lot of farmers who rely on GE traits right now. Most of the soybeans grown in Vermont are Round Up Ready. Soybeans are a pain in the neck to grow in this state without that tool. That soybean product is a way of reducing one's protein costs on a dairy farm. So it's an economic issue to a farmer."

(Kinzel) Passage of the bill is a top priority for Rural Vermont. Policy Director Amy Shollenberger thinks Secretary Kerr's concerns are unfounded:

(Shollenberger) "I think it's fear mongering and I think it shows that Secretary Kerr is more concerned about the industry than he is about the farmer. If the product is as good as they say it is, there should be no problem with assuming liability. They should be proud to say, 'Yes, if there's any problem with this product we will stand behind it 100 percent.'"

(Kinzel) The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to take additional testimony on this bill next week.

For Vermont Public Radio, I'm Bob Kinzel in Montpelier.

USDA TACTIC TO BLOCK RELEASE OF ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE RECORDS RULED ILLEGAL

Agency Told it Cannot Charge Fee for Documents Sought Under FOIA Request

Washington - In a clear victory for advocates of organic agriculture, a federal district court judge ruled a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stalling tactic illegal, clearing the way for the Center for Food Safety (CFS) to gain documents detailing the qualifications and background of the organic food certifiers that USDA allows to participate in the national organic food program. The ruling by District Judge Ricardo Urbina came as the result of a lawsuit filed by CFS in August 2004 after USDA had stalled for nearly two years in releasing documents sought by CFS under the Freedom of Information Act.

CFS is seeking the documents to address a growing threat to the integrity of the national organic food standards. Appropriate certification of organic farms is the fundamental enforcement mechanism of organic food standards. Fueling public concern over a reduction in the integrity of the new "organic" label is the appearance of numerous new, previously unknown certifying agents applying to the USDA for accreditation. Since 2000, the number of organic certifying agents has jumped from 49 to over 120. This unexpected increase in the number of accreditation applicants raises troubling questions about the USDA's oversight and assessment of the qualifications of new certifiers seeking accreditation and raises the specter of possible "sham" certifiers being allowed into the program.

Copies of the full decision are available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

Posted on Sun, Feb. 13, 2005

Resistance to biotech wheat still prompting legislative debate

CURT WOODWARD

Associated Press

BISMARCK, N.D. - Months after samples of a promising biotech wheat variety were uprooted from research plots and destroyed, some farm-country lawmakers are trying to raise the financial stakes for bringing the wheat back.

Their proposals would hold seed developers responsible for money damage claims from organic farmers and other producers who shun biotech wheat. They have been praised as ways to protect family farms, and denounced as attempts to block revolutionary technology.

Terry Wanzek, a rural Jamestown farmer who is president of the North Dakota Grain Growers Association, said increasing biotech companies' legal exposure would discourage them from attempting to remedy common wheat diseases, or developing varieties that thrive in harsh climates.

"I can't imagine sitting in a rocking chair on my porch telling my kids, 'I fought biotech,'" Wanzek said. "It'll sound as absurd as saying 'I fought Louis Pasteur' or 'I fought Thomas Edison.'"

Others, like Montana state Sen. Jon Tester, say farmers must be able to seek damages from biotech companies if their crops are contaminated once the altered wheat takes root. He says claims that research would be limited are "a smoke screen."

"I think that if this stuff is well thought out and well researched, then step up to the plate and stand behind it," he said.

Tester is among the supporters of legislation that would assign strict financial liability to companies that produce biotech wheat. The measures are being considered in North Dakota and Montana, with similar bills applying to all biotech crops introduced in Hawaii and Vermont.

The legislation would shield farmers from most financial claims if a biotech crop creeps into a field or grain elevator where it isn't wanted, and contaminates non-biotech supplies. The idea has been proposed before, but has not become law in any state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Todd Leake, an Emerado farmer and biotech wheat opponent, says farmers need the protection. Agriculture companies require farmers to sign licensing agreements before they may use biotech seed. The agreements transfer legal liability to farmers if pollen from their crop gets into a neighbor's field, Leake says.

"Right now, every participant in the whole process of bringing (genetically modified) wheat forward ... is basically absolving itself from liability," Leake said. "Farmers and elevators are left with all the liability for GMO wheat contamination."

Biotechnology is used in such U.S. crops as corn, soybeans, canola and cotton. Biotech wheat, however, has not been commercialized. The prospect of genetically modified wheat is touchier, because wheat is used to make human food, while corn and soybeans are most often used as livestock feed.

The St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. announced last year that it was shelving a type of wheat altered to resist one of the company's herbicides, in part because of an unfavorable market. The company had research samples at North Dakota State University, which were recalled and destroyed.

That makes legislative resistance even more puzzling, said Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization. Monsanto is a member of the group, which represents companies and colleges involved in biotechnology development.

"With Monsanto deciding not to market it yet, why are they putting this bill forward? I don't have a clue," Dry said.

Supporters say the time is right, particularly in rural states where the Legislature meets only every two years.

"The research is still going on. This issue is not going away," said Sen. Connie Triplett, D-Grand Forks, the primary sponsor of the North Dakota legislation.

Wheat is big business in the Midwest, and North Dakota is among the nation's leading producers. Last year, the state supplied 46 percent of the nation's supply of hard red spring wheat, which is milled to produce bakery flour.

Those who oppose biotech wheat fear that once the crop is introduced, it will spread far beyond the fields in which it is planted and cut off access to valuable markets. Customers in Europe and Japan, which import significant amounts of U.S. wheat, have resisted biotech varieties.

Industry supporters counter that farmers already have effective ways to segregate different crops and have learned to live alongside biotech versions of a half-dozen other products.

North Dakota Rep. Mike Brandenburg, R-Edgeley, said the liability measure has little chance of getting approval in the Legislature. The North Dakota Senate's Agriculture Committee has recommended that the bill be defeated, and a Senate vote is likely this week.

If the measure were approved, innovative technology would be virtually banished from the state, Brandenburg said.

"The world changes all the time," he said. "It's the same thing with farming. We can't go back."

For Tester, the debate is a microcosm of the strain between small farmers wary of biotech and large companies that make a living in the industry.

"Who's going to profit from this?" he asked. "Who's pushed the envelope to get this developed? It's agribusiness, agribusiness, agribusiness. Who's going to get sued if things go awry? It's the family farmer."

http://www.grandforks.com

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/genedebate.html

The Debate
Genetically-modified food is fast becoming as controversial as cloning. Critics call it "Franken food" — as in Frankenstein. The debate rages much hotter in Europe than in the United States, but that very fact ensures that the issue makes it into the equations of biotechnology and agriculture companies and government export policy. What is it all about?

What is a genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically modified food (GMF)?

The main feature of a GMO is that there has been man-made manipulation of the DNA, the genetic structure, of an organism. This does not apply to processes of mutation and natural selection — as in cross-pollination or grafting — but rather the use of biotechnology to alter DNA.

To learn more about the intricate processes of genetic modification please visit:

Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide
The National Health Museum Graphics Gallery

North Dakota farmers find themselves in a similar dilemma. In 2001 North Dakota Bill HB1338, "A Bill to Impose a Moratorium on Genetically Modified Wheat Seed" came up in front of the state legislature. The bill asked for a two year ban on planting any GM wheat in the state in order to provide time to study possible effects on markets and to prevent gene flow. It was sponsored by farmers, and it was opposed by farmers. The ban failed, but both groups agreed more study was needed. Just last month another moratorium bill entered the state legislative process.

Percentage of U.S. genetically modified commercial crops, 1996: 0%

Percentage of U.S. genetically modified commercial corn, 2002: 34%

Percentage of U.S. genetically modified commercial cotton, 2002: 71%

Percentage of U.S. genetically modified commercial soya, 2002: 75%

Bushels of corn sales lost to Europe due to GM restrictions since mid 1990s: 300 million

Bushels of corn sales lost to Japan due to GM restrictions since mid 1990s: 100 million

Estimated loss in sales in Japanese and European markets mid 1990s: Half a billion dollars

Cost decline of raising GM cotton vs. non-GM cotton: 25%

Amount of pesticide needed by GM cotton vs. non-GM cotton: 1/6


Sources: SCIENCE, THE ECONOMIST, Dan McGuire, ACGA Farmer Choice - Customer First Program (September 14, 2002)