Erin Trauth is an instructor of professional and technical writing for health sciences. She is... Erin Trauth is an instructor of professional and technical writing for health sciences. She is also a doctoral candidate in Technical Communication and Rhetoric at Texas Tech University. Her primary doctoral research explores consumer interpretations of front-of-package food labels and regulatory policies surrounding this communication. When she's not hitting the books, Erin enjoys traveling, hiking, reading, yoga, cooking, and gardening Read more about Erin Trauth Read More
In the on-going battle between Monsanto and farmers across the globe, Monsanto has reigned king in most every case. According to Daily Finance, since 1997, “[Monsanto] has filed 145 lawsuits against farmers who’ve improperly reused its patented seeds, or on average about one lawsuit every three weeks for 16 straight years.” And in these suits, Monsanto hasn’t lost a single case.
This trend may finally be beginning to change, though.
Steve Marsh, an organic farmer in Western Australia, found in 2010 that “his harvest had been contaminated by his neighbor’s genetically modified canola/rapeseed crops planted with Monsanto Roundup Ready seed.” As a result, Marsh “subsequently had 70% of his farm’s organic status for produce stripped from him causing severe financial harm, some $85,000 in earnings.” Because of this, Marsh is now suing his neighbor for the financial loss incurred in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit that has people talking.
If Marsh is able to defend his property rights in the case, it will produce a “disincentive for farmers to use GM seeds if they know they will be held liable for the equivalent of “polluting” a neighbor’s property. Just as a company can be held liable for toxic runoff that contaminates an adjacent piece of land, this lawsuit seeks to hold GM farmers liable for their “runoff” that ruins a neighbor’s livelihood,” says Daily Finance.
In the event Marsh is victorious, Monsanto would not be impacted directly, per say, but the win would show that Monsanto isn’t invincible after all.
“Because Monsanto requires farmers to sign non-liability clauses when they purchase seeds from the biotech, it’s insulated from being a party to the lawsuit directly, though it demurred when specifically asked whether it was providing financial assistance to the defense. But a win by Marsh could show there is indeed a chink in Monsanto’s armor of invincibility,” Daily Finance reports.
We will keep you posted on the results of this case – in any event, it’s great to see talk that Monsanto, with its highly-financed, seemingly unshakable coat or armor, could be taken down in one of these cases.
Image source: John Serrao / Wikimedia Commons
You must be Login to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox! Sign up for daily news from OneGreenPlanet.
Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.
Great effort – nice, and giving some hope. But sadly, this first step is just a struggle between two kinds of victims
(far too few opposing – mostly organic – farmers against many collaborating ones, the latter sometimes seduced by allegedly better income perspectives, but often compelled to sign contracts for their mere economic survival).
The next step should use the contamination proof arguments to demand protection not only against evident damage that already happened, but against the clearly existing risk that it MAY happen (like it is unacceptable to allow cars driving through pedestrian zones at unreduced speed as long as nobody gets injured).
There must be a way to directly thwart corporations’ strategy of manipulating, corrupting or blackmailing politics and media (supposed to be representatives and antennas of the general public). It may be necessary to accept that big companies use all possible means of law, though their demands have developed far beyond these of entepreneurs (including farmers) opposed to employees, and their goals since decades don’t even formally fit into the myth of a fair balance of interests. Moreover, they deal with fundamental preconditions for life – and even more with principles of democracy – which constitute the framework for legal interaction of individuals and juristic persons within and between nations, as if these rules were not the base they ought to act upon, but merely disposable opinions which may underlie if only confronted with a refutation tricky enough.
This is no legal struggle, this is limitless warfare, only carried out in white-collar hack lawyer manner – on global scale. So, it most urgently must be stopped on a global lawful level (plus any possible level below, silmutaneously) – for that purpose, the individual seed pollution evidence misses the comparability to the fiscal arguments that brought about Al Capone’s downfall. Remember David threw a stone against Goliath, not a “zero points for performance” argument.
I say stop politicians first…