DEMOCRACY IS MONSANTO'S MOST EXPENSIVE FOE

Monsanto Protection Act Takes Shape

By Conan Milner, Epoch Times | April 17, 2013

Activists protest against biotech company Monsanto outside the White House on March 27, 2013 in Washington, D.C. A provision buried in the latest budget bill allows the agribusiness giant to plant genetically-modified crops without judicial review to determine whether or not their crops are safe. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Legislation should not be done under cover of darkness in backroom deals, and if there’s a provision that has this type of impact on farmers and the environment, it should be openly debated on the senate floor.
Dave Murphy, founder of the farming advocacy nonprofit Food Democracy Now (FDN)

The White House passed a temporary budget bill nearly three weeks ago, but a small provision buried deep within the legislation continues to draw scorn and protest. Supporters of the measure say it’s much ado about nothing.
The provision’s official title—Section 735 of Senate appropriations bill HR933—doesn’t say much. The debate is revealed in the nicknames.
Supporters call it the Farmer Assurance Provision, and portray the rider as a minor regulatory adjustment necessary for farmer protection. Critics call it the Monsanto Protection Act. For them, the measure is a blatant attack on both farmers and democracy to protect biotech industry profits.
An aura of secrecy and deception surrounding Section 735 have raised as much concern as the changes to policy. The earmark was submitted anonymously into an urgent six-month budgetary measure designed to keep vital government functions afloat. Critics say it was not given the legislative attention it deserved.
“We’re certainly outraged because of the impact that it would have on many farms, but we were just as outraged at the lack of transparency that it had,” said Dave Murphy, founder of the farming advocacy nonprofit Food Democracy Now (FDN), in a phone interview.
“Legislation should not be done under cover of darkness in backroom deals, and if there’s a provision that has this type of impact on farmers and the environment, it should be openly debated on the senate floor.”
According to Murphy, the White House, regulators, and several key lawmakers have all expressed regret for the rider’s inclusion. Officials have responded to criticism with a variety of excuses, but very few have stepped forward to take credit for 735. In fact, most legislators have sought to distance themselves from it.
When blame turned to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she issued a public apology for Section 735. Mikulski explained that although she didn’t support it, her “first responsibility was to prevent a government shutdown,” which meant compromising her own priorities “to get a bill through the Senate that the House would pass.”
What It Does
In one long, legalese-filled sentence, Section 735 basically compels the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow genetically engineered crops to grow even if the environmental impact of a particular plant is disputed in court. Although the USDA already had the legal discretion to make this call, Section 735 effectively streamlines the regulatory process to prevent further holdups in the seed market.
Supporters say the overblown uproar over 735 is a reaction born of ignorance, and Monsanto offered to separate “fact from fury” in a company statement evaluating the controversy.
According to the biotechnology and chemical giant, the paranoid portrayal of big business sneaking in a secret provision is “worthy of a B grade movie script.”
“Virtually none of the people protesting actually read the provision itself,” the company’s April 2 blog states. “Those who did, found a surprise: It contains no reference to Monsanto, protection of Monsanto, or benefit to Monsanto. It does seek to protect farmers, and we supported the provision.”
Monsanto says that accusations of backroom deals are not only nonsense, but unnecessary as the measure already enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Commentators have tried to further assuage critics with a reminder that the appropriations bill only lasts six months.
Although 735 does not name the company, Monsanto clearly benefits from the law. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) eventually claimed responsibility for adding the provision, and according to an interview with Politico, he crafted the rider in a joint effort with Monsanto and input from the late Senate Appropriations chairman and biotech proponent Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).
Blunt, a ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, hails from the same state as St. Louis-based Monsanto. He also receives more money from Monsanto than anyone else in Washington. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that Blunt’s campaign committee received over $64,000 between 2008 and 2011.
A Law Takes Shape
According to supporters, 735 is necessary to protect biotech crops from the regulatory holdup of activist lawsuits.
“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it,” Blunt told Politico.
The law got its first opportunity for action last week in Oregon’s Jackson County, where organic and conventional growers are looking to ban genetically modified seed through a voter initiative approved for next year.
The ban would protect all-natural crops in the county’s Rogue Valley from contamination with GMO pollen. But some Oregon legislators don’t want the public to be able to make that decision.
State senators on Oregon’s Rural Communities and Economic Development committee used 735 to justify a bill that would mandate a statewide standard on seed planting before the public vote can take effect.
Oregon’s Seed Preemption Bill (SB 633) would ensure a uniform planting policy throughout the state, preventing Jackson County voters from issuing any GMO ban specific to their area. The bill passed the Senate committee 3–2 and supporters now seek a similarly favorably committee in the house.
Proponents of SB 633 say the measure is merely practical, not only because counties lack the resources necessary to enforce a ban, but also because it burdens Oregon farmers with yet another regulatory measure.
Organic and conventional farmers argue that SB 633 targets their business protection.
“Monsanto calls it the Farmer Assurance Provision because they know that language matters. You can get broad bipartisan agreement on something that sounds very innocuous,” said Murphy. “[Farmers] oppose these crops because they could contaminate their fields with the patented GMO pollen. That harms their economic livelihood.”
Last year Monsanto waged a costly campaign to defeat a voter referendum requiring labels on products containing GMO crops in California by painting the law as a liability to consumers. Although that strategy was successful, it was also expensive and difficult. According to Murphy the company wants legislative protections against such voter referendums.
“Monsanto doesn’t want to go to the popular vote. They did it in California but it cost them $46.5 million. It’s an expensive process,” Murphy said. “They want to short circuit the democratic process by doing the easiest thing on earth—by buying the state legislators and elected officials to make sure they do what they want them to do to protect their profits.”
Source:  http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/17987-monsanto-protection-act-takes-shape/

TELL CONGRESS TO SUPPORT FEDERAL LABELING LAWS!

 

In the U.S., we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions.  Under current FDA policy, we don't have that choice when it comes to genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families.  But thanks to your tireless support, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) will introduce new Federal legislation next week that would require the labeling of all genetically engineered (GE) foods; the first labeling bill to be introduced in the Senate in over a decade!

Tell your Senators and Representative to Co-Sponsor the GE food labeling bill!

Without mandatory labeling of GE foods, consumers are being left in the dark about the foods we are purchasing and feeding our families.  Sixty-four countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, South Africa, Australia, the the European Union, and many others.  The U.S. is one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn’t require labeling.  Yet there is overwhelming public demand—consistently near 95%—for the labeling of GE foods.  Already in 2013, 53 GE labeling bills have been introduced in 26 states, including Hawaii, Washington, Indiana, Missouri, and Vermont, with more expected by year’s end.

New GE Labeling Bill Being Introduced in Congress!

Send an email to your Senators and Representative to co-sponsor the new federal
GE labeling bill

TAKE ACTION TODAY!

GMO CORN - DEVOID OF NUTRITION.....AND JUST PLAIN POISON?

Analysis Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

by Mike Barrett
April 15th, 2013
Updated 04/15/2013 at 4:44 am

Is GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity.
With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous GM crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.

Non-GMO Corn 20x Richer in Nutrition than GMO Corn

The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising. First, the report found that non-GMO corn has considerably more calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, iron, and zinc.

• Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.

• Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.

• Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 – non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.

• Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

As far as energy content goes, non-GMO corn was found to ‘emit 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn’, as reported by NaturalNews. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Click for full-size version.

GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic

Not surprisingly, the report found what many of us already know – that GMO corn is highly toxic. While non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup), and other toxic substances, GMO corn is riddled with these toxins.
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations, the maximum amount of glyphosate allowed in drinking water is 700 parts per billion, which equates to .7 ppm. The amount is a set “level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems”.  Europe allows even less glyphosate in water, at .2 ppm. The report found that GMO corn contains 13 ppm – that’s 18.5x the “safe amount” set by the EPA.
Similarly, GMO corn contains concerning levels of toxic formaldehyde, at 200 ppm. According to Dr. Don Huber, a respected expert on GMOs, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. The GMO corn was found to contain 200 times more formaldehyde than this ‘maximum’ safety amount.

Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Click for full-size version.

Biotech Giants Like Monsanto Caught Lying Again

Monsanto has been making the claim for years that genetically modified foods are equivalent or even of higher quality than non-GMOs, but nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown us the dangers of GMO foods such as GMO corn, along with the dangers of the massive amount of pesticides that accompany GMO crops. This 2012 report reminds us once again that corporations like Monsanto simply can not be trusted, and that the company will continue making false claims until the end of days in order to profit and slowly genetically engineer the world.
—
The 2012 report 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, was reportedly shared with the owners of MomsAcrossAmerica.com by De Dell Seed Company, the only non-GMO seed supplies in Canada. De Dell Seed Company received the document from a company called ProfitPro, based in Minnesota.
Additional Sources:
Onlinelibrary.Wiley
About Mike Barrett: Google Plus Profile | Mike is the co-founder, editor, and primary researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health. 
SOURCE:   http://naturalsociety.com/analysis-monsanto-gm-corn-nutritionally-dead-toxic/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=bd1a129a76-Email+136%3A+4%2F15%2F2013&utm_medium=email

GMO LABELING FEDERALLY? BY STATE? CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS NOW!

Genesis Farm Update     April 11, 2013

Please Support GMO Labeling Recently there has been huge public outcry over the infamous rider to a massive congressional funding bill signed into law. The provision, dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act,” protects Monsanto's genetically engineered crops from judicial review. One way to counteract Monsanto's outrageous influence over food policy is by passing mandatory labeling laws for genetically modified food. Though Monsanto has already spent many millions to quash labeling law initiatives, there is increasing public support for it in the United States. Thirty states are now considering labeling laws; New Jersey is one of them. (A draft of the New Jersey bill is here.) Take Action Today: In addition to state initiatives, new federal legislation is about to be introduced that would mandate the labeling of foods made with genetically modified ingredients. Please take a moment to contact your federal legislators about this critical issue. The Center for Food Safety has organized a convenient interface for sending a message to your elected officials. Need more info? Food and Water Watch has prepared fact sheets on the following: the health effects of genetically modified foods will GMO food labeling be expensive? popular support for GMO labeling laws ******** Earth Day and Farm Celebration Saturday, April 27, 10am - 4pm The Community Supported Garden at Genesis Farm will be hosting an Earth Day and Farm Celebration on Saturday, April 27th from 10 am to 4 pm. (Rain date is Sunday, April 28th.) This free event celebrates local agriculture, healthy food, and the northwest New Jersey region. Fun activities for children and adults will take place throughout the day. Hayrides, field and greenhouse tours, plant walks, cooking demonstrations, hooping performance, animal & nature activities, food sampling, wine tasting, live music and more. Farmers will also be on hand to discuss the sustainable farming techniques that have guided our award-winning CSA for the past twenty-five years. Please come and celebrate! More information on the CSG website.

GMO LABELS ON FOOD PACKAGING - THE REAL DEAL

Why Labels on Genetically Engineered Foods Won’t Cost Consumers a Dime

• By Zack Kaldveer and Ronnie Cummins
  Organic Consumers Association, April 9, 2013
  
  

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, will soon descend on the state of Washington to try their best to defeat I-522, a citizens’ ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Voters should prepare themselves for an onslaught of discredited talking points, nonsensical red herrings, and outright lies designed to convince voters that they shouldn’t have the right to know what’s in the food they eat.
Topping the biotech industry’s propaganda playlist will no doubt be this old familiar tune: that requiring retailers to verify non-GMO ingredients in order to label them will be burdensome and costly, and the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling to feed their families.
Playing to consumers’ fears of higher food costs makes good strategic sense, especially in tough economic times. But the argument doesn’t hold water, say food manufacturers and retailers who already have systems in place for verifying non-GMO, as well as rBGH-free, trans fat-free, country of origin and fair trade. The system involves using chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavits, not expensive testing.
“We have used the affidavit system repeatedly, without undue burden or cost,” said Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets. PCC, the largest consumer-owned natural food retail co-operative in the United States, uses the affidavit system to ensure their chocolate isn't made using child slave labor, their dairy products don't come from animals subjected to rBGH hormones, and that all seafood was harvested using sustainable sources and practices.
Trader Joe’s, a privately held chain of nearly 400 U.S. stores, confirmed that the company’s private label products, under the names Trader Joe’s, Jose’s and Ming’s, are GMO-free, though the company doesn’t label them as such. In an email, a company spokesperson said:
" When developing products containing ingredients likely to come from genetically modified sources, we have the supplier of the product in question perform the necessary research to provide documentation that the suspect ingredients are from non-GMO sources.

This documentation is in the form of affidavits, identity-preserved certification of seed stock, and third-party lab results from testing of the ingredients in question."
Trader Joe’s performs random audits of items with suspect ingredients, using an outside, third-party lab to perform the testing, the company said. Trader Joe’s system is not unlike that of the USDA, which requires sworn statements from food producers to certify organic foods. The agency requires test samples from approximately 5 percent of products, all of which must be GMO-free in order to be certified organic. For the other 95 percent, the agency relies solely on sworn statements.
Clif Bar & Co. also requires affidavits from ingredient suppliers demonstrating they can meet the company's stringent non-GMO requirements.
Monsanto would have you believe that verifying and labeling for non-GMO ingredients is a costly and burdensome affair, but the fact that Trader Joe’s, known for its discount prices, can provide GMO-free private label products, which reportedly account for over two-thirds of the company’s estimated annual $9 billion in sales, takes the wind out of the “burdensome” argument. That leaves the cost of adding another line of ink to a label. Trader Joe’s doesn’t yet label its private label products as GMO- free, but the company cites a lack of clear labeling guidelines from U.S. governmental agencies as the reason it doesn’t label, not cost.
Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project confirmed what retailers who use the affidavit system said:  "An affidavit system like what's proposed in I-522 is a powerful way to have a significant impact on the food supply with minimal cost."
How does the affidavit system work?
Companies selling non-GMO foods provide a sworn statement (i.e. an affidavit) to the retailer that the ingredients used are sourced from crops that aren’t intentionally genetically engineered. The affidavit, unless deliberately dishonest, protects the manufacturer and the retailer from liability in the case of unintentional GMO contamination.
Retailers are responsible only for labeling a few raw commodities that may contain GE ingredients, such as sweet corn, papaya, or squash.  In these cases, the retailer can either stick a simple label on the bin or ask their supplier for an affidavit stating that the crop is GMO free. 
Under this system, no costly testing for GE ingredients is required. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers, at no additional cost to the customer or taxpayer.
The beauty of the affidavit system is that it offers retailers and manufacturers a simple, easy way to comply with a regulatory model that provides consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.  Even for manufacturers who might otherwise seek to pass on the trivial expense of relabeling to consumers, empirical studies show that the fear of losing customers in the competitive food industry will be a deterrent to raising prices. Did food costs change when we labeled calorie content? 
Is the system reliable? Retailers say yes. Why would manufacturers intentionally deceive retailers only to open themselves up to a lawsuit and public relations nightmare? And the system has a proven track record. PCC Natural Markets, Trader Joe’s and Clif Bar all use affidavits, as do other manufacturers who use them for country-of-origin and no-trans fat labeling. And nearly two-thirds of the nation’s largest dairy processors use sworn affidavits from producers in order to label rBGH-free. (rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a synthetic, genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production).
Contrary to claims made by companies like Monsanto, states do have a constitutional right to label food. In fact, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act explicitly allows states to add language to labels so long as the federal government doesn’t require language on the same subject – a right that has consistently held up in federal court.
A chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavit labeling system empowers consumers to make more informed choices about what we eat, without increasing the costs of groceries or burdening retailers and manufacturers.  One simple label to identify foods that have been genetically engineered, often using the genes of foreign bacteria and viruses, would lead more consumers to seek out sustainable, organic, non-GMO alternatives. And that – not some phony line about increased food costs – is why Monsanto is fighting labeling.
Zack Kaldveer is assistant media director at the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).
Source:  http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27317.cfm

OBAMA DROPS FUNDING FOR USDA POULTRY INSPECTIONS - FEELING MORE CONFIDENT IN YOUR MEAT NOW?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 10, 2013 3:41 PM

CONTACT: Food & Water Watch Anna Ghosh, aghosh@fwwatch.org, 415-293-9905

Obama Administration Caves to Poultry Industry By Proceeding With Privatized Inspection

Statement of Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch

WASHINGTON - April 10 - “The Obama Administration’s proposed cuts to the FY 2014 budget for USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) pave the way for an ill-conceived proposal to remove government inspectors from slaughter facilities and turn over their responsibilities to company-paid employees. The Obama Administration proposed a change in regulations on January 27, 2012, to implement this privatized inspection model and these budget cuts advance this aim despite hundreds of thousands of comments to the USDA opposing the proposal. Although the final rule has not been published, the proposed FY 2014 budget makes the rule a fait accompli.
“USDA has been conducting a pilot using this privatized inspection model since 1999 in 20 chicken and 5 turkey slaughter facilities. The department has made the argument that the remaining USDA inspectors in the plants can focus on ‘food safety’ issues leaving ‘quality’ defects for the company employees to handle. The department’s own analysis accompanying the January 2012 proposed rule revealed that Salmonella rates in the plants using the privatized model were higher in pilot plants when comparably–sized plants receiving conventional inspection.
“Food & Water Watch did its own analysis of the inspection documents from a group of the poultry plants participating in the pilot and we found that ‘quality defects,’ including visible fecal contamination, were being missed by company employees (see http://foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/privatized-meat-inspection-ex...).
“More alarming is the fact that, of the poultry plants that failed the most recent round of the FSIS salmonella testing, two are part of the pilot project – Tyson Foods Establishment P7101 located in Clarksville, Arkansas, and Golden Rod Broilers Establishment P341 located in Cullman, Alabama. The pilot plants represent a disproportionate share of the all poultry plants that failed the salmonella testing. Yet, the Administration is seeing fit to move forward with an inspection model that may increase food borne illness and not reduce it (List of failing plants can be found here http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FSISFailedBroilerPlants.pdf).
“When the Obama Administration first proposed expanding this pilot, it estimated that the FSIS would save $90 million over three years by eliminating some 800 USDA inspector positions, and the poultry industry would stand to pad its bottom line to the tune of $260 million per year since more companies could increase line speeds to 175 birds per minute under fewer regulatory requirements. The new inspection model also poses serious threats to worker health.
“Congress should reject the Administration’s proposal. Instead, the Administration should be seeking legislative authority for FSIS to regulate foodborne pathogens in all meat and poultry plants that fall under its jurisdiction instead of letting the companies regulate themselves.”
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

###

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. 

Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/04/10-7

ROUNDUP 'ULTRA' - BIRTH DEFECTS, CANCERS, WATER & SOILS CONTAMINATION

Published on Monday, April 8, 2013 by Common Dreams

Farmers and Consumers V. Monsanto: David Meet Goliath

by Tory Field and Beverly Bell

"Down with Monsanto" read a banner as thousands marched for food sovereignty in Haiti, March 22, 2013. (Photo: Tequila Minsky © 2013)Bordering an interstate highway in Arkansas, a giant billboard with a photo of a stoic-looking farmer watches over the speeding traffic. He’s staring into the distance against the backdrop of a glowing wheat field, with the caption “America’s Farmers Grow America.” It’s an image to melt all our pastoral hearts.
Until we read the small print in the corner: “Monsanto.”
The maker of Agent Orange, Monsanto’s former motto used to be, “Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.” Today its tag line is “Committed to Sustainable Agriculture, Committed to Farmers.” Its website claims the company helps farmers “be successful [and] produce healthier foods… while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment.” It even boasts of the corporation’s dedication to human rights.
Behind the PR gloss is a very different picture. Via Campesina, the world’s largest confederation of farmers with member organizations in 70 countries, has called Monsanto one of the “principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples.” Via Campesina members also target Monsanto as a driving influence behind land grabs, forcing small farmers off their land and out of work. The agribusiness giants also contribute to climate change and other environmental disasters, outgrowths of industrial agriculture.
Together with Syngenta and Dupont, Monsanto controls more than half of the world’s seeds. The company holds more than 650 seed patents - most of them for cotton, corn and soy - and almost 30% of the share of all biotech research and development. Monsanto came to own such a vast supply by buying major seed companies to stifle competition, patenting genetic modifications to plant varieties, and suing small farmers. Monsanto is also one of the leading manufacturers of genetically modified organisms [GMOs].
Monsanto has filed more than 140 lawsuits against 400 farmers and 56 small businesses for alleged violations of contract or GMO patents. One such case is currently under consideration in the Supreme Court. “Farmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone else’s genetically engineered crop [or] when genetically engineered seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted,” said the Center for Food Safety.[i] In total, the company has won more than $23 million from these suits. The multinational appears to investigate 500 farmers a year, in estimates based on Monsanto’s own documents and media reports.[ii]
In Colombia, Monsanto has received upwards of $25 million from the U.S. government for providing Roundup Ultra in the anti-drug fumigation efforts of Plan Colombia. Roundup Ultra is a highly concentrated version of Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide, with additional ingredients to increase its lethality. Local communities and human rights organizations have charged that the herbicide has destroyed food crops, water sources, and protected areas in the Andes, and has led to increased incidents of birth defects and cancers.
On March 26, siding once again with corporations, President Obama signed into law a spending bill with a “Monsanto Protection Rider.” This requires the government to allow GMO crops to be planted before an environmental and health assessment is completed. This means that crops may be planted with the permission of the USDA even if it is not known whether they are harmful.
One Goliath, Many Davids
Farmers and activists are not sitting idly by.
Via Campesina launched a global campaign against Monsanto on International World Food Day in 2009, with marches, protests, land occupations, and hunger strikes in more than 20 countries. The coalition continues organizing international days of action against the company and agribusiness in general. Via Campesina has kept the spotlight on Monsanto at its global protests, such as the 2012 UN Climate Change Conference in Bangkok.
One of the rejections of Monsanto occurred in the small village of Hinche, Haiti in June, 2010. There, thousands of farmers burned Monsanto seeds. The Haitian Ministry of Agriculture had given Monsanto permission to import and ‘donate’ 505 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds. “It’s a declaration of war,” said Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, director of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP). The importation of massive amounts of hybrid seed threatens the traditional, regionally adapted seed stock of Haiti, as it does in many other countries. Hybrid seeds also cause a cycle of dependence, with farmers buying them from Monsanto each year rather than relying on local markets or their own saved seed. In an open letter, Jean-Baptiste called the entry of the seeds “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds…, and on what is left of our environment in Haiti.”[iii]
The same day as the protest in Haiti, activists in Seattle gathered in solidarity. They burned Monsanto seeds in front of the headquarters of the Gates Foundation, which is promoting GMO seeds in Africa. In Montana, the home state of Monsanto’s world headquarters, activists dressed in lab coats and Tyvek to demand that Monsanto “seeds of dependency” be kept out of Haiti. In Chicago, a Haiti support group did not have Monsanto seeds, so they burned Cheetos instead. The Organic Consumers Association’s network sent more than 10,000 emails protesting Monsanto’s ‘donation’ to USAID and President Obama. African-American farmers in Mississippi mobilized letters to the White House, too.
Around the world, farmers and activists have long taken it upon themselves to destroy Monsanto’s GMO crops. Groups have cut down or pulled up fields of corn, potatoes, rapeseed, and other crops, sometimes laying them at the entryways of government buildings where they are demanding anti-GMO legislation. In 2003 in the state of Paraná in Brazil, activists uprooted plants at one of Monsanto’s experimental labs. They went on to file and win a land reform claim, and then started their own agroecology university on the site.
In the U.S., the Organic Consumers Association has spearheaded the “Millions Against Monsanto” campaign, demanding that the company stop intimidating small family farmers and forcing untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods on consumers. The campaign works to unearth information about Monsanto’s practices, push legislation to limit corporate power, and disseminate research and action items through its extensive network. Occupy Monsanto has also held a number of actions around the country. This week, starting April 8, groups from around the country are gathering in Washington, D.C. for Occupy Monsanto’s “eat-in” at the FDA, demanding GMO regulation and an end to corporate influence in food policy.
In 2012, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative (Prop 37) in California to mandate labeling of products containing GMOs. Their hope was that forcing companies to label in California, the eighth-largest economy in the world, would prompt countrywide labeling. Companies poured money into defeating the measure, the largest donors being Monsanto (about $8.1m) and DuPont (about $5.4m). Also donating millions were companies that own major organic labels like Kashi (Kellogg Company), Horizon (Dean Foods), Odwalla (Coca-Cola), and Cascadian Farms (General Mills). The measure failed by a tiny margin, causing the anti-GMO movement to redouble its efforts. Labeling laws have been proposed in more than 20 other states and are currently under consideration by legislators in Vermont and Washington.
In 2011, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association – together with 82 other plaintiffs, including agricultural associations, seed companies, and farmers – brought a lawsuit against Monsanto in Manhattan federal district court to establish protections for organic farmers whose crops are contaminated by GMOs. The court ruled against them, but the plaintiffs appealed and are currently awaiting a ruling.
Back in the rural Haitian town of Hinche on March 22 of this year, the same peasant farmer group that had burned Monsanto seeds held another demonstration. Holding banners reading “Down with Monsanto,” they demanded an end to corporate tyranny of agriculture. Allies from many countries in Latin America, North America, Europe, and Africa joined them in that dusty town, recommitting themselves to a world with food and seed sovereignty.
[i] Andrew Kimbrell and Joseph Mendelson, Center for Food Safety, “Monsanto vs. US Farmers,” 2005.
[ii] Center for Food Safety, “Monsanto vs. US Farmers,” Nov. 2007.
[iii] Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, group email, May 14, 2010.
This article originally appeared on Other Worlds as part of their Harvesting Justice series.

Tory Field is Research and Education Coordinator for Other Worlds. Tory is an organizer living in Massachusetts. She worked for many years as a community organizer with Arise for Social Justice, a multi-issue community justice organization in Springfield, MA. where she now serves on the Board of Directors.

Beverly Bell is the founder of Other Worlds and more than a dozen international organizations and networks, Beverly is also an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Beverly has worked for more than three decades as an organizer, advocate, and writer in collaboration with social movements in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and the U.S.   She is the author of the book Walking on Fire: Haitian Women's Stories of Survival and Resistance.
Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/08-7