Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers

Farmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them with herbicide and then there is very little maintenance until harvest. Farmers who plant Monsanto's GM crops probably don't realize what they bargain for when they sign the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract. One farmer reportedly 'went crazy' when he discovered the scope of the contract because it transfers ALL liability to the farmer or grower.



Here is the paragraph that defines Monsanto's limit of liability that shifts it to the farmer:

"GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES."

G. Edward Griffin, author of 'The Creature From Jekyll Island', and numerous other books and documentary films, and Anthony Patchett, retired assistant Head Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County Environmental Crimes/ OSHA Division explain the consequences of the Monsanto contract in the video below.

Continued
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWak_bUHDm8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers[/ame]


Comment: Well isn't that special!?

 

Oh yeah. Essentially you lose the rights to their fields. And one guy in a thread called me a conspiracy theorist. LOL

 

Monsanto should be blown off the face of the earth. Their monopoly and control has gotten way out of hand. They are ruthless.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...o+evil&psj=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=5e2b21bd614e0a97

 

G. Edward Griffin is no stranger to conspiracy theories. He is well known for accusing the AMA and FDA of collusion in propagating cancer by limiting the use of laetrile. Yet there have been no successful experiments supporting its use as treatment.

Monsanto's agreement is not so different from others. Once you buy the product, it is out of the manufacture's hands.

Monsanto has developed Round-Up ready soybean seeds. Farmers can spray their crops to kill weeds without harming the plants themselves.

There was a lawsuit brought by Monsanto on a grower that purposely grew acres of Round-Up ready plants claiming that the seeds 'blew over' on his land. If you delve into the case (as I did) you would realize that the guy was trying to clone these seeds without permission from Monsanto which has a patent on the genes.

Sorry, I can't get too excited about this.

 

Monsanto are attempting to play god for money with the global food supply.

I cannot imagine a more dangerous or stupid thing for the human race.

 

Indeed. Here is an excellent documentary outlining the shenanigans of this scum.

The World According to Monsanto

 

Me neither. Some creep will be working on it though.

 

I've seen aa few of them and what they are doing to small independent American farmers and anyone they've got their evil hooks into in the 3rd world is beyond a disgrace.

 

Leftist loser construction. Wake up. You elect leftist loser politicians who allow this monopoly global corporations to exist, and then blame republicans. Poor clueless bastards.

 

Gotta love the IMF baby.

 

That sells short all the crimes against humanity they did regarding our food. You know they made agent orange before they made food?

Just type in Monsanto into youtube and you can see all the horrors they have done.

 

I'm simply beside myself with either your complete and utter lack of basic understanding of a simple premise, or impressed that you are prepared to expose your hypocricy to the entire world.

 

And the world bank, both institutions used by both left and right European and American governments to rape the worldsa poor - we should be proud.

 

<<< Mod Edit: Off Topic >>>

Studied that a long time ago. That person claims that the seeds 'blew' on to his property yet he had acres of Monsanto 'Round Up Ready' plants and did not pay for the use. The court found that Monsanto had a patent on the genetic code. I have seen him on YouTube, have read the documents and looked at Monsanto's claims as well.

You have 2 choices, accept the law or become activist and go about changing it. Insulting me does nothing but get you in trouble.

 

Review:
GMO Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ii9ARL4EGg"]YouTube - GMO Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser[/ame]

​

.

 

<<< Mod Edit: Off Topic >>>

I must make one correction. Schmeiser was growing CANOLA.

In any case, upon examination of his fields it was found that over 90% were the genetically modified type characteristic of the Monsanto patent.

Cross pollination would not account for this nor any amount of seeds blowing from trucks as was claimed. Schmeiser saved the seeds.

Schmeiser was not an 'orgainc' farmer, he had purchased large amounts of Roundup which he used on his GM crops. His reasoning was that he was trying to identify the GM plants by spraying his crops. That is ludicrous.

Schmeiser knew he was planting GM canola. He seeded that large crop from seed saved in previous years.

Now.....If you truly believe that a company has no rights to its patents then I urge you to take it up with the courts.

Here is Monsanto's account...

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

"The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He&#8217;s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story. Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn&#8217;t spontaneously appear."

"he used Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions."

"In the first trial, Schmeiser claimed in 1997 he sprayed Roundup on three acres of his canola field because he was suspicious it might be Roundup tolerant. If his story were true, this would kill any canola plants other than those tolerant to Roundup. After killing more than half his crop, he then harvested the remaining plants that did not die and segregated this seed. The next year (199 he had this seed treated and used this seed to plant 1,030 acres on his farm.

Why would he harvest seed that he says he didn&#8217;t want on his farm and deliberately plant it the following year?"

"Schmeiser didn&#8217;t have a few Roundup Ready plants in his field. His fields had mostly Roundup Ready plants in them&#8211;far more than could have ever grown there by accident. Again, in the words of the Canadian court judgment:

&#8230;tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of this 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. &#8230;The trial judge found that &#8220;none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality&#8221; ultimately present in Schmeiser&#8217;s crop."

Reality, not made-up stories about 'evil' corporations...

 

<<< Mod Edit: Personal Attack >>>


What follows is the story taken from "Project Censored"

FOX MEDIA ON BEHALF OF MONSANTO
WINS THE RIGHT TO LIE IN A COURT OF LAW

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an
assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying
the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired
by FOX as a part of the Fox "Investigators" team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida.
In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone
(BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The
couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health
risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid
selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers
otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about
the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the
reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters
knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct
conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to
continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to
report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12
1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury
unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when
she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or
slanted story" about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further
maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law.
Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court
decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by
the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District
Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The
Court held that Akre's threat to report the station's actions to the FCC did
not deserve protection under Florida's whistle blower statute, because
Florida's whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted
"law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC
rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against
falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or
regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station
whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against
distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment,
broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on
public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they
pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was
their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob
Linger commented, "It's vindication for WTVT, and we're very pleased. It's
the case we've been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."

UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an
upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve
Wilson, could not be more compelling.

Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a
jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as
whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious "Goldman
Environmental" prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned
around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict
was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida's Second District. The
court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth.
Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC's
policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said
the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers.

What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of
Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX - to support FOX's position: Belo
Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General
Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media
players! Their statement, "The station argued that it simply wanted to
ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a
commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that
it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim."

"Fairness and balance?" Monsanto hardly demonstrated "fairness and balance"
when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important,
verifiable information!

The Amici position was "If upheld by this court, the decision would convert
personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into
litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal
policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory
issues." After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws,
imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same
course of action?

The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers -
in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First
Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let's not forget, however;
the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left-while
these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves?
Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at
the expense of the truth? Apparently so.

In addition, the five "friends" referred to FCC policies. The five admit
they are "vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will
determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate
federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment."

Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under
Michael Powell's leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media
consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter
are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of
"editorial judgment" is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial
accuracy if the "accuracy" harms a large corporation and its bottom line.
This is our "Brave New Media", the corporate media that protects its friends
and now lies, unchallenged if need be.

The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa
Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from
both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox
attorney, William McDaniels-who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour.
The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in
defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original
trial judge, Ralph Steinberg-a logical step in the whole process. However,
Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the
hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.

Akre and her husband feel the stress. "There is no justification for the
five stations not to support us," she said. "Attaching legal fees to
whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The 'business' of broadcasting
trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the
public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is
alarmingly absent here."


On Behalf of Monsanto Fox News gets The Okay
To Misinform Public, In Court Ruling
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog...s/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

The Media Can Now Legally Lie &#8211; Thank You Monsanto
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

--------------------------------------

--

 

.

WHAT SAY YOU !!

--------------------------------------

The World According To Monsanto - FULL LENGTH [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH4OwBYDQe8"]YouTube - The World According To Monsanto - FULL LENGTH[/ame]


Monsanto & Cancer Milk: FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES Reporters.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0"]YouTube - Monsanto &amp; Cancer Milk: FOX NEWS KILLS STORY &amp; FIRES Reporters.[/ame]

.
The Whole Truth About Monsanto
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYliLZWrsn4"]YouTube - The Whole Truth About Monsanto[/ame]

-----------------------------------------

& for a little Lite Entertainment:

--------------------------

.​

 

<<< Mod Edit: Off Topic >>>.

That is PATENTED seed which you have to PAY for. Monsanto did not preclude him from buying seed from someone else. Monsanto realizes that seeds can blow in the wind and that cross pollination can take place and are willing to remove the few plants that are affected at their own expense. In this case, Schmeiser had whole fields full of Round Up ready plants that could not have resulted in blow over or cross pollination as was PROVEN in a court of law.

 

If you perceive none of the FACTS I have presented then You are Willfully Ignorant


You have not even HAD the time to LOOK at my Posts & all the Facts that they contain
You EXPOSE Yourself - The FACTS in my posts are Plentiful Regarding Monsanto's Malignancies

You have not even LOOKED at a Fraction of those Facts let alone address them
But you simply DENY them out of Hand - & call for HELP when Peeled & Stripped

Let this Forum take this confrontation from the top & show its Balance -
We will see how this forum handles the EXPOSING of Corporate Malfeasance

Some of those Facts:

The HOW of GM pollution matter not a bit - The Farmer is Liable NO MATTER
Monsanto LIEs about their Growth Hormone - the effects of the hormones & the PUS in the Milk
RoundUp is NOT Biodegradable & is Highly Carcinogenic & is spread profusely on our Food
GM's are causing CANCER in Lab animals - Test results have been blatently doctored

WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY

Etc Etc Etc
.
.

 

I have to agree. The likes of Monsanto are always closely watched, and need to be.

 

bump do the bump

 

This is all old stuff. The reporters wanted to change their story and the Fox affiliate said no. Even a fellow reporter said the two were just trying to stir up controversy.

This is all very simple...A farmer, not wishing to pay for the Round up ready seeds like everyone else around him, used the technique of culling out non-round up ready plants by spraying. The court found that he was in the wrong.

Monsanto tried to work with him before-hand but he refused, wishing to make an issue out of it. The fact is... his story just doesn't hold up.

The links you provided are nothing more than hyperbola aimed at stirring up hatred for Monsanto by putting forth some kind of tin-hat conspiracy theory.

Google likes to put liberal-socialist links first whenever they can. Do some digging and get the other side of the story. I did.

 

Well they are both on the same team....and google is part of that team too.

Monsanto is total evil, so is Fox, so is google...games will be played and people will be fooled.

Who here is a hero for the makers of agent

 

1. WRONG
The Reporters wanted to tell the Truth that their investigations revealed,
as to the proven adverse effects of Monsanto's TOXIC WASTE
..... Known as BGH (Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)
.....& which was being sold to the public Unbeknownst to them.

Review
"Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use
statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters
knew were false, and to make other revisions to the story that
were in direct conflict with the facts."

& the fellow reporter USED, to sell Monsanto's Lie & Disinformation
Obviously LACKED the Integity of the Reports who lost their jobs
& who had their lives & careers RUINED, by Giant Corporations,
that sought & won from a Co-Opted & Corrupted court of law,
............................................ the right to Lie to the public

The case is clear & indisputable: The adverse effects
....................... of BGH have been clinically proven –
.. & that Monsanto sought to hide those FACTS when
..... the reporters investigations revealed those FACTS

To aver otherwise is to run against the face of FACTS
A decidedly Foolish & Unwise Debating Technique
that Irrevocably damages your cause - I Thank You for that

----------------------------------

2.WRONG
Again you play this False & Misleading Canard
Be aware that the Court that found against the farmer Schmeiser
.........................in a 5 to 4 judgment stated to the effect that :

"...that Monsanto’s case rests Upon the Fact that It does not matter
HOW the GM’s got into Schmeiser’s his or any other Farmer’s Field
whether by Fraud or by Vagrant Pollenation
& that it does not matter how much or to what degree the field
has been so polluted..."

Schmeiser & any other Farmer whos field is found to contain
the GM Gene, are ALL convicted upon the FACT that it is there
Obviously Fraud could not be proven or Schmeiser would now be in Jail

So stop all this Ridiculous & Misleading Disinormation
that this is all simply just a question of Propriety & Copyright
that is a Corporate Lie and the repeating of it will not make it true

----------------------------------


..