Group won’t give up on Monsanto lawsuit

decrease font size  Resize text   increase font size       Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Groups that refuse to accept that Monsanto biotechnology products, or any biotechnology products are safe, continue to try and use the courts to stop biotechnology crop production. Although lawsuits don’t proclaim their intent to stop biotechnology, some lawsuits try to alter the law under which biotechnology can be used in conventional farming. After having a lawsuit stopped by a court of appeals, a group has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in.

A group of 73 mainly organic farmers, seed businesses and public advocacy groups asked the Supreme Court this week to hear their case against Monsanto Company challenging biotech seed patents on genetically engineered seed. In Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al v. Monsanto, the plaintiffs sued preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their fields ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed.

In a June 10 ruling this year, a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that organic farmers and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto's transgenic seed patents "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

The lawyers involved for the plaintiffs claim there is reason for appealing the lower court ruling. "While the Court of Appeals correctly found that the farmers and seed sellers had standing to challenge Monsanto's invalid patents, it incorrectly found that statements made by Monsanto's lawyers during the lawsuit mooted the case," said Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto. "As a result, we have asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reinstate the right of the plaintiffs to seek full protection from Monsanto's invalid transgenic seed patents."

The plaintiffs brought the pre-emptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 and specifically say they are seeking to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto's patents on GMO seed. They claim to have been forced to act pre-emptively to protect themselves from Monsanto's “abusive lawsuits,” fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement.

Statement’s by representatives of the plaintiffs show overt dislike for Monsanto and biotechnology crops, and not all of it is based on facts in this lawsuit.  

“We have been farming for almost 40 years and we have never wanted anything to do with Monsanto,” said Jim Gerritsen, an organic seed farmer in Maine and president of lead plaintiff OSGATA.  “We believe we have the right to farm and grow good food the way we choose. We don’t think it’s fair that Monsanto can trespass onto our farm, contaminate and ruin our crops and then sue us for infringing on their patent rights. We don’t want one penny from Monsanto. American farmers deserve their day in court so we can prove to the world Monsanto’s genetically engineered patents are invalid and that farmers deserve protection from Monsanto’s abuse.”

Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, said, “For the past 20 years, Monsanto has used its political and financial power to foist a deeply flawed technology on America’s farmers, consistently underestimating the real risks of genetic engineering while putting America’s farmers, the environment and the public in harm’s way simply in the name of profit. As the leading arbiters of justice in the U.S., it behooves the Supreme Court to hear this important case to protect America’s farmers from abusive patent infringement lawsuits and invalidate Monsanto’s flawed patents as their products have been shown to be damaging to human health and the environment and failed to live up to the marketing hype.”

Prev 1 2 Next All

Buyers Guide

Doyle Equipment Manufacturing Co.
Doyle Equipment Manufacturing prides themselves as being “The King of the Rotary’s” with their Direct Drive Rotary Blend Systems. With numerous setup possibilities and sizes, ranging from a  more...
A.J. Sackett Sons & Company
Sackett Blend Towers feature the H.I.M, High Intensity Mixer, the next generation of blending and coating technology which supports Precision Fertilizer Blending®. Its unique design allows  more...
R&R Manufacturing Inc.
The R&R Minuteman Blend System is the original proven performer. Fast, precise blending with a compact foot print. Significantly lower horsepower requirement. Low inload height with large  more...
Junge Control Inc.
Junge Control Inc. creates state-of-the-art product blending and measuring solutions that allow you to totally maximize operating efficiency with amazing accuracy and repeatability, superior  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The flagship blending system for the Layco product line is the fully automated Layco DW System™. The advanced technology of the Layco DW (Declining Weight) system results in a blending  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The LAYCOTE™ Automated Coating System provides a new level of coating accuracy for a stand-alone coating system or for coating (impregnating) in an automated blending system. The unique  more...
John Deere
The DN345 Drawn Dry Spreader can carry more than 12 tons of fertilizer and 17.5 tons of lime. Designed to operate at field speeds up to 20 MPH with full loads and the G4 spreader uniformly  more...
Force Unlimited
The Pro-Force is a multi-purpose spreader with a wider apron and steeper sides. Our Pro-Force has the most aggressive 30” spinner on the market, and is capable of spreading higher rates of  more...
BBI Spreaders
MagnaSpread 2 & MagnaSpread 3 — With BBI’s patented multi-bin technology, these spreaders operate multiple hoppers guided by independent, variable-rate technology. These models are built on  more...

Comments (3) Leave a comment 

e-Mail (required)


characters left

Missouri  |  September, 10, 2013 at 01:35 PM

As the article states the key to this group's actions has more to do with an overt hatred for Monsanto and less to do with any of the hypothetical scenarios of inadvertent pollination of a non GMO field followed by a Monsanto lawsuit of a fact, not one lawsuit has ever been the result of inadvertent acts, but there have been lawsuits for ADvertent acts, proven in court by the evidence, to be the result of intentional seed piracy by dishonest freeloaders cheating the system.

Canada  |  September, 11, 2013 at 07:05 PM

The "hypothetical" scenario of inadvertent pollination of a non-GMO field has been documented since Starlink (remember?). A company paid producers who did not plant the Starlink corn damages; this is pretty convincing evidence that corn pollen will travel more than 660 feet to contaminate non-GMO cornfields. I like to use the bull analogy. If your crossbreed bull crosses the fence and inseminates your neighbor's purebred cows, wouldn't you feel responsible? Producers, AgLander, who wants you to pay for seed technology escapes onto your land OR ELSE, thinks of you as "dishonest freeloaders cheating the system". Nice fella.

September, 13, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Seems they have a valid concern: Washington alfalfa rejected for export is confirmed to be contaminated with GMO material: c.html

Tube Series (TS) Conveyors

USC’s Tube Series Conveyors combine the gentleness of the signature Seed Series with the traditional stability of a tube-style conveyor, ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Feedback Form