Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Monsanto vs. Anniston Alabama

Here another interesting case about Monsanto vs. Anniston, Alabama. One of our group members also giver her input at the end. What do you think?



Monsanto was founded in St. Louis Missouri in 1901 and became the largest chemical company of the 20th century. Among its most disastrous products were PCB’s, used as insulating fluids and fire retardants. Production of PCBs were banned in the 1970s, but in the little town of Anniston Alabama, unbeknown to its inhabitants, Monsanto was permitted to dump the chemicals, their deadly effects are still felt.

About 90% of the claimants were African American, and 80% earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level-the case resulted from the manufacture of PCB's in a poor, mostly black neighborhoo. This relates to our class discussion about environmental racism. People, inadvertently forced by their financial circumstances and race, to live in areas that are considered environmentally dangerous. 2001 was when the case was issued: consisted of 18,000 individual claimants (78% of the claimants were classified as adults [born before 1985] and the other 22% were classified as children)

The claimants lived, or previously lived, in Anniston Alabama near a manufacturing plant that formerly produced PCBs. This case was settled in 2003 for $300 million dollars awarded to the defendants. Of the $300 million, $ 275 million was paid into a settlement fund, and the $ 25 million balance funded a claimant medical clinic. Of the 18,000 claimants in the Tolbert case, about 14,000 lived in Alabama, mostly in the Anniston area, but 4,000 lived in forty-four other states and overseas. Two hundred were in prison and one hundred were located in foreign countries. Three hundred were deceased when Tolbert settled. This case was filed against the “Tolbert Defendants” in conjunction with another Alabama case Abernathy v. Monsanto Co. **in BOTH cases the claimants were awarded $300 million dollars. This means Monsanto paid $600 million dollars, for these two cases alone.

Keep in mind that the 300 million dollars are divided among 18,000 people. This comes out to roughly $16,600 per person, but it was not awarded as such. Each claimant was awarded according to their PCB levels in their blood tests but the amounts they were awarded were not really that much in the big picture of things. The only reason the lawyers took the 300 million was because they were worried if they did not accept the settlement, and they lost the case, than they would be left with nothing for their clients. By the time the case was settled, 300 of the people were dead. About 82% of the claimants answering the questionnaire thought they should be paid for living in the impacted area even if they scored negative on the PCB blood test and were not sick, apparently because this factor attempts to measure the time of exposure that a claimant experienced over time in living near the plant. The court agreed, thereby assuring that almost all the claimants received a payment, however small. Instead of receiving all their cash up front, the claimants were awarded money through their medical care at two clinics in Anniston. One for adults, and one for children. Approximately 4,000 adults and 1,000 children used the clinic. The clinic provided about 2,000 prescriptions per month and primary medical and dental care. At this rate, the clinic’s endowment would last about 15 years.

Monsanto's defense of its actions surrounding PCBs can best be summarized this way: the company claims it didn't know that PCBs were harmful to human health or persistent in the environment until the late 1960s, and as soon as the company learned of these threats, it acted quickly and responsibly to address the problem in a cooperative, forthright manner with the government. Monsanto went to extraordinary efforts to keep the public in the dark about PCBs, and even manipulated scientific studies by urging scientists to change their conclusions to downplay the risks of PCB exposure.

According to the lead attorney for Monsanto, defending the company against allegations that its PCB pollution poses a health threat to residents living near its Anniston, AL chemical plant, "The truth is that PCBs are everywhere. They are in meat, they are in everyone in the courtroom, they are everywhere and they have been for a long time, along with a host of other substances. The truth is that the men and women who have worked around PCBs the most over forty, fifty, sixty years, people in our plant, people in the electrical industry, have not experienced any significant health problems which can be associated or tied into or caused by PCBs other than a serious skin condition called chloracne, which is easily treatable."

Despite Monsanto saying PCB only causes chloracne, studies on health effects associated with PCB exposure indicate neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. Monsanto dumped at least 5.5 million pounds of PCBs in landfills located near the plant.

In May of 1969, Monsanto conducted an internal investigation and recognized the PCB pollution problem in Anniston‘s waterways, and yet no one in Anniston was notified. In 1970, 3 Monsanto employees approached Joe Crockett, the Technical Staff Director of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, to let him know about the PCB pollution in Anniston. Mr. Crockett, in short, said that he appreciated them coming forward with this information and acknowledging fault in the situation, he then insisted that they give no statements or publications which would bring the situation to the public’s attention. And that if anyone asked them about the issue, they would say that the AWIC was studying the matter. When the FDA tested the water after numerous fish had turned up dead, and found out the water had 55 times the legal limit of PCB’s, they notified the AWIC, who then notified Monsanto, but the AWIC (Joe Crockett in particular) was already looking out for Monsanto’s best interest and helped keep the matter quiet.

I found this interesting while doing my research on the chemical industry archives website. There is a link to two of Monsanto’s internal documents on the Anniston case. They were posted to this website for the world to finally see, and they uncover a shocking story of corporate deception and dangerous secrets. BUT, when you click either of the links, the documents have been removed and are no longer available. Gee, I wonder if MonSatan, I mean…Monsanto, had anything to do with that?

Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser


Here is one of the largest and most controversial cases Monsanto has had to deal with. it's Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser. Attached is also a link of a video that has Percy talking out against Monsanto!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPKoSrc99p4

Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto is one of the bigger cases of Monsanto suing small farmers. Percy Schmeiser is a canola farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, Canada. Percy has been growing canola on his farm in Bruno for over 40 years. He has also served as Mayor of the Town of Bruno from 1966-1983 and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Watrous constituency in the Provincial Legislature from 1967-1971.

The case began in 1997, when Monsanto’s genetically modified canola was found on Mr. Schmeiser’s farm. Mr. Schmeiser had never purchased the genetically modified seeds from Monsanto but more than 320 acres of his farm had been contaminated. When Monsanto found out that he had the seeds on his farm they sued him for illegally planting Monsanto’s canola without paying the $37-per acre fee for the seeds. Most lawsuits with Monsanto against small farmers are settled out of court but Mr. Schmeiser decided to fight back. According to a 1999 article from the Vancouver Sun, “He's been experimenting, developing his own varieties, using his own seed and generally prospering with canola and reaping the benefits derived from growing an increasingly popular crop. So when Monsanto, the giant multinational agro-chemical company that is at the forefront of developing genetically modified foods, accused him of patent infringement and demanded restitution for its seeds, his pride was hurt. He chose to fight rather than roll over and take it." Monsanto claimed that Percy illegally bought the Roundup Ready seeds from other local farmers and then used them in his 1997 crop, then kept some of that year's seed to plant in 1998. Percy claim that he planted his 1997 crop with seed saved from 1996, and insists that any Roundup Ready growing on his land was spread by wind or by grain trucks travelling on roads adjacent to his fields.

On August 10, 1999 they tried to settle the dispute without going to trial but failed. The very next day, Schmeiser launched a $10 million lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of a variety of wrongs, including libel, trespass and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready. The trial finally started on June 5, 2000 in Federal Court in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and it lasted three weeks. On March 29, 2001 the court ruled in favor of Monsanto. Mr. Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Schmeiser "knew or ought to have known" his 1998 seed was resistant to Roundup. He said it was more likely that he planted the seed himself than that he came by it innocently. Judge MacKay awarded Monsanto the equivalent of Mr. Schmeiser's profits on his 1998 canola crop which was $19,832 as well as legal costs estimated at $153,000. In 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. According to the Organic Consumers Association, “In 2003, the government of Ontario intervened in Schmeiser's Supreme Court case, saying it has "important implications for the development of public policy in Ontario including the delivery of health care to its residents." Ontario argued a gene molecule can be patented, but not the genetic information within the molecule.”

Mr. Schmeiser has been asked to speak all over the world about the dangers of genetically modified crops. Schmeiser believes that “the case revolved around a conflict of two set of rights. One set of basic "plant breeders' rights" allows Canadian farmers to buy seed and then plant offspring for one more year. On the other side, Canadian patent law allows companies to patent genes and then insert them into plant varieties and enter into contracts with farmers not to replant them.”
Here is another article about Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser. This is one of the biggest situations Monsanto has been involved with and has motivated Mr. Schmeiser to speak out against Monsanto. Attached is a video of Percy speaking against Monsanto. Check it out!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPKoSrc99p4

Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto is one of the bigger cases of Monsanto suing small farmers. Percy Schmeiser is a canola farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, Canada. Percy has been growing canola on his farm in Bruno for over 40 years. He has also served as Mayor of the Town of Bruno from 1966-1983 and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Watrous constituency in the Provincial Legislature from 1967-1971.

The case began in 1997, when Monsanto’s genetically modified canola was found on Mr. Schmeiser’s farm. Mr. Schmeiser had never purchased the genetically modified seeds from Monsanto but more than 320 acres of his farm had been contaminated. When Monsanto found out that he had the seeds on his farm they sued him for illegally planting Monsanto’s canola without paying the $37-per acre fee for the seeds. Most lawsuits with Monsanto against small farmers are settled out of court but Mr. Schmeiser decided to fight back. According to a 1999 article from the Vancouver Sun, “He's been experimenting, developing his own varieties, using his own seed and generally prospering with canola and reaping the benefits derived from growing an increasingly popular crop. So when Monsanto, the giant multinational agro-chemical company that is at the forefront of developing genetically modified foods, accused him of patent infringement and demanded restitution for its seeds, his pride was hurt. He chose to fight rather than roll over and take it." Monsanto claimed that Percy illegally bought the Roundup Ready seeds from other local farmers and then used them in his 1997 crop, then kept some of that year's seed to plant in 1998. Percy claim that he planted his 1997 crop with seed saved from 1996, and insists that any Roundup Ready growing on his land was spread by wind or by grain trucks travelling on roads adjacent to his fields.

On August 10, 1999 they tried to settle the dispute without going to trial but failed. The very next day, Schmeiser launched a $10 million lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of a variety of wrongs, including libel, trespass and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready. The trial finally started on June 5, 2000 in Federal Court in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and it lasted three weeks. On March 29, 2001 the court ruled in favor of Monsanto. Mr. Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Schmeiser "knew or ought to have known" his 1998 seed was resistant to Roundup. He said it was more likely that he planted the seed himself than that he came by it innocently. Judge MacKay awarded Monsanto the equivalent of Mr. Schmeiser's profits on his 1998 canola crop which was $19,832 as well as legal costs estimated at $153,000. In 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. According to the Organic Consumers Association, “In 2003, the government of Ontario intervened in Schmeiser's Supreme Court case, saying it has "important implications for the development of public policy in Ontario including the delivery of health care to its residents." Ontario argued a gene molecule can be patented, but not the genetic information within the molecule.”

Mr. Schmeiser has been asked to speak all over the world about the dangers of genetically modified crops. Schmeiser believes that “the case revolved around a conflict of two set of rights. One set of basic "plant breeders' rights" allows Canadian farmers to buy seed and then plant offspring for one more year. On the other side, Canadian patent law allows companies to patent genes and then insert them into plant varieties and enter into contracts with farmers not to replant them.”




Monsanto vs. Nelson

Hey everyone! here is another story about Monsanto and some issues that had with Nelson farms. Let us know what you all think!

The Nelson family owns a farm in North Dakota and they are currently being sued by the mega giant Monsanto Farms. Monsanto is claiming that the Nelson family is using their genetically modified product, round up, without their permission. Although there has been no major source of evidence to back up Monsanto’s claims, they are still persisting with this case and hundreds of other against small farmers. The Nelsons are accused of saving seeds from a 1998 cropping of round up ready soybeans, but a court on March 22, 2010 found that this was not able to be backed up by any proof. The case has been very hard on the Nelson family because Monsanto is holding back a lot of information and has even failed to show up for court meetings in order to buy more time to find proof. The Nelson’s had bought round up ready seed to plant in 1998-1999 on soil that had been infested with pesticides, but they were only supposed to use it for that crop. Monsanto is accusing them of saving some seeds and still using them today. The Nelson’s claim that not only are they not using it, but it would impossible because they did not have enough to save any without having had a full crop in 1998.

Since Monsanto is failing to win ground currently inside the courtroom, they have taken to attacking the Nelson family ourside of the court room. They have written letters to at least 23 farmers in South Dakota asking them to refuse to sell anything to Nelson farms. Roger Nelson is your typical American farmer and has had his own farm since 1961. He now farms his land with his two sons and hopes to keep his family business going for a long time. Although they struggle with money, their farmland is mostly rented and their wives all have other jobs, they have a reputation as a good honest family and they refuse to let Monsanto take them down!






Monsanto or Monsatan?

Thanks for deciding to check out our blog. We are Ricardo Horna, Charlotte Radu, Amanda Ward, and Colleen Cosgrove and we are students at The Florida State University. We are part of an Environmental media class and would like to present the information we gather on a topic of special interest. On this blog we will be updating you on informations about Monsanto, a US based agricultural, multinational biotechnology corporation. Monsanto has been a very controversial company due to its aggressive litigation and political lobbying practices. Most entries will deal with specific issues and cases Monsanto deals with and has dealt with. To start off here is some background information on Monsanto!


Monsanto farms are a US based company who is credited with created a genetically modified crop called roundup. The headquarters operates out of Missouri and they are responsible for the sale of 90% of all genetically engineered crops. The company was founded from a pharmacist in 1901 that used his own money and some profit from a soft drink company that he worked with. He gave the company his wife’s maiden last name and began by making artificial sweetener, which they then sold to Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola then began to use Monsanto as one of their main suppliers. Over the next few decades and into the 1940’s they became a large distributer of sulfuric acid and plastics and are one of the US’s top ten chemical companies. They have also helped in the creation of some controversial chemicals like DDT, Agent Orange and even nuclear weapons. DDT was eventually banned in 1972 by environmentalists and this proved to be the beginning of many controversial times for Monsanto. In 1982 Monsanto is credited with creating the first genetically modified plant, which then moved them from being a largely chemical company to a more biotechnical company. Beginning in 2005 Monsanto sued many small farmers for copy right infringement of their crops and many cases have developed since, both for and against them.