well you know not every worker what do you need to swing an election you need what i mean four percent and you're saying that's maybe all they need i want to thank you so much congrats on the story thanks for talking with us about it that was my labor journalist and that is going to do it for now from one of the stories we covered go to r.t. dot com slash usa check out our you tube page at youtube dot com slash r t america and follow me on twitter at lauren lyster and i will see you and our.

the official g.o.p. case. you called talk from the. street. dot com. today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world seeing from the streets of canada. corporations are today.

in japan i met with a lot of scientists consumers and processors and in partners and this document here is a couldn't get its worship out there all the scientific studies the japanese have done using monsanto's data is over fifty pages long it has been all translated into english for me and that is on the food issue the food part of g.m.o. was months out obvious use the term substantially quadrant of the food is very similar but the japanese scientists say that it is not substantially covering the food is different and that you have changed in a true genetic engineering or genetic modification you have changed the structure of the food and it's not the same and it can have very harmful allergens or

bacteria that because there viruses have the bacteria that they use for the transferring of genes are also in that food so it is not the same and it could have very possible long range health effects of by eating eggs in other words what monsanto present it to our governments in north america is false and that it is not safe and it's not substantial equipment which means it's not the same as other regular food and that has been a major major announcement by the japanese scientists. in north america the chain of transport is completely unprotected and open no one has ever thought of the idea of transporting and storing genetically modified grain separately no it is too late. it's very difficulty segregate the grain from the regular grain and today he called her brain because you have contamination from the

. it from the elevation from the trucks that are hauling it so it would be impossible to keep it separate so there is always be a small percent each four percent each that would mix together and so it would not be g.m.o. free. thus the borders are open for the export of genetically contaminated grain and also seat into the whole world. if you introduce g m o's there is no such thing as coexistence and after several years it all becomes. i have also heard in europe a company saying that all a farmer has to do is leave a cot for strip fifty meters one hundred meters there is no safe distance it doesn't matter if it's fifty kilometers it will spread. so if you

introduce g m o's it all becomes after several years and to give you an example how bad it is in canada we no longer have any pure rub see we no longer have any pure saria it has now all g.m.o. is in canada i have often heard in europe and we were also told that in one thousand nine hundred six farmers can have a choice they can grow g m o's they can grow organic or they can grow conventionally there is no more choice left it all becomes g.m.o. was and you know longer can have an organic farmers. need.

they want control ok and they basically have control is what they have first they go in and they bought our seeds stay seeds stock producer holden's corp i believe out of iowa and after that they have holdings has like a whole family or group of seed growers and the rule was that in ninety five they said in five years and after they told them you will be selling ninety percent monsanto product or you will not be in business selling seed so if they did not push monsanto is product on the farmers they would be out of business and so that's what all the seed growers did they pushed the product on the farmers so that they could stay in business. because if they were did not have holdings to grow their spread their seed stock they would not have anything to sell they had it all changed it all changed overnight one thousand nine hundred ninety six it all

changed and it's interesting that the way monsanto seems to enforce this saying is they go into the countryside and they try to determine who is clean in their own seed saving and cleaning your own seed for replaying the next years is a perfectly legal activity. but over the course the last ten years it's went from a perfectly legal and respected activity to one that is illegal. all because corporations have the money to own seed they own life. and what's even worse about it is this is life that that the human kind of spent. developing. you know we took the soybean ten thousand years ago from nothing to what it is today and in monsanto comes along inserts one little gene and then then they turn around and patent all the germ plasm not just the g.m.o.

but the the conventional the fortunes of the seed and say yeah we own this too but it's nonsense that belongs to humankind and in mine on and. you know on center what's the called pirates or farmers of save their own seed pirate seed pirates they call us but i think we ought to revisit who's the real pirate here these people stole our genetic heritage. if farmers lose their rights to use their own seed become service of the land and we're back to a little system and that could quite easily quite quickly happen in a third world country but it will also happen in north america and i think to some degree farmers already are in a service of the land already because they have to buy the say they have to from a certain company they have to buy the fertilizers they have to buy the chemicals especially for all from the same company you have to pay

a fee to grow crops under law on their own land so i think already to our large degree we are already served on our own land by how multinational corporation like monsanto. mark was is an organic farmer a neighbor of percy schmeiser together with a thousand organic farmers he sued monsanto for damages arising from the contamination of their canola and mustard crop. the thing is what should always happen is the precautionary principle we should not

allow anything out of the oratory into the environment especially to do with our food because it is so essential we all need food we need water we need air we should not allow this to happen. only six years later the supreme court of canada decided that they could not bring the case as a class action you know every farmer has to claim his damages individually and assume the high risk and high legal cost. when we were in switzerland last year one interesting thing is we had a journalist who was very surprised to find out that when we do surveys in canada labeling g.m. foods that over ninety percent of canadians say we want mandatory labeling on foods

and this journalist was so surprised he said we just assume we take for granted that in north america you're comfortable with g.m. foods look you've been eating it for ten years and you seems to be no health effects. see people when you survey them when you ask them they don't want this we're eating this unfortunately because we don't know it's in our food there's no labeling therefore we've been used like laboratory experiments where you've been used as guinea pigs and who knows we may be affected with our health as we speak with products that you purchase in the store anything that has soya or canola in it or corn you have to be aware because they are most likely contain transgenic or g.m. products. in canada it was approved by the canadian food inspection agency they're the ones that give monsanto regulatory approval for the introduction but they only used the data

supplied to them by months entre they never did no testing whatsoever and so when months satis said to the canadian food inspection agency it's substantially quint it's almost like a real food then the government said well then we don't have to test our defense substantial equipment we don't have to have our own scientists check that they had no testing whatsoever and that has really created a lot of peer. in the canadian consumers because what are they really eating when monsanto said it was safe when months and who has a very bad track record when he was say p.c.t.'s were say agent orange would say now are we to believe them when we say a g m o's or g.e. or janay engineering and say i would never trust them one bit because they don't have a good track record because everything they said before birth false and

a lot. also in the case of monsanto's herbicide roundup there were studies demonstrating that roundup could be used without risk resulting in worldwide approval of the product many other studies show the negative health effects of the active ingredient to roundup lifeforce eight months until itself warns the material safety data sheets of tissue damage bloody vomiting cardiac arrhythmia and pomona a demon as a result of direct contact or ingestion of the toxin. and now they have found that round up studies done in oregon shows that it is the third biggest clobbers are from related their illnesses in the state of california and eventually it originally we were told by monsanto all rounder is so say you could drink it. with the advent of gene technology

a chemical industry entered into the business of plant breeding dupont and monsanto but seed produces for about twelve point five billion dollars in ten years today the two chemical giants are also the biggest plant breeders in the world producing about three quarters of the world's g.m.o. crops. the height of gene technology cynicism is the so-called terminator technology it makes the farmers biologically dependent on the corporations the plants are genetically modified in such a way that they are able to germinate only once sowing the harvest seeds is pointless the harvest is dead.

and monsanto flower has said. right they own anything they put that cd in or they develop what about if you put a gene into a human being those that say the or me is that say to you when you. i am. i was from one end of south africa or whether it was sir john as for girl gerben or her cape town cape town where the parliament is at i was invited to speak there and then an incident happened in and there at the parliament and i'll never

forget into a moment of monsanto's representatives also had given a small presentation and i had given a presentation with various how their seeds implants is how it could be contaminated and coming out of the assembly the parliament assembly where i went face to face in two months and as representative from johannesburg and he he was very very out of that i would say rude and a he said to me and shake in his face that night they said nobody stands up to monsanto we're going to get you and we're going to destroy you and no way and he also went on to say that when i get back to canada i was going to be in big trouble and sure enough three weeks later when i got back to canada monsanto launched another lawsuit against me for a million dollars and for all their car cars because they said i was stabbed and i

was arrogant i didn't do what months and. one it and after another year of trial they judge the same judge as the first round that they had in the federal court or what it must have one hundred fifty three thousand dollars a court costs they didn't get the million and so i am now faced with an additional costs if i wouldn't lose my case in this way in court. in may two thousand and four the supreme court of canada announced its decision one percy schmeiser did infringe upon the pavement owned by month sons of corp by illegally ceding his canola which was contaminated with months on toes g.m.o. seen to because he did not actively use the page and he is not required to pay any damages two months ago. at the same time as the judgment is being announced in ottawa a british miser and his lawyer terry's a christie give a press conference in saskatoon there was no proximate two hundred thousand dollars judgment that was set aside by the supreme court of canada today and that to percy

is a fairly major victory. i really feel that to panic but i can save money farm same a home without pain it costs to monsanto you know i was looking at a two hundred thousand dollar bill so that is a major victory could be in the court rules further a patron on the gene allows the owner to control the entire plant that is the patient on the gene has priority over the ownership of the plant. where it says fries or loses a court battle too much happier and that's what i said and just was talking to another lawyer that it could be the biggest win for us or for the people concerned about the most and time only tell and i'm sure that this from court and for applied years will have to revisit because where the results of their decision could mean

that a corporate. could control almost anything that they put their genes into or anything to quit their patents are that's the way it stands right now also some people legal people have expressed that and then it was a white decision that eventually now monsanto will be faced to be able to have to control what he put into the environment for although i built the issue and if they put up an environment that they are eight and it's no they can't control they'll take a second look at it if they put something in there and they're going to end up with massive lawsuits which can break the company. i wish to spend talking with nathan bush one day if only yesterday and he was really telling me he said i had a great victory yesterday and he said that we should own up perry and to really

give them encourage and encourage growth but he said what now has happened is that monsanto could farmers could break monsanto. you're the every farmer would for not want sound and say i think they're some of your g.m. or canola or so beans in my field come and get it we don't want it here or i've noticed i we've had some of your g.m.o. seeds up could north or beings or in my seed come and get it how it wants out of able to take a plant out of a farmer's field how would they know if it can or plant when it's to see just sane and a forest to stay in so my santa couldn't they couldn't do it. so . companies ground of appeal that we were wanting to weigh in on was one that would say that you know just because you have a pattern to or gene or a cell that doesn't give you a pattern to a plant the other part of the problem is what what responsibilities do biotech

companies have to farmers for packaged material that escapes and causes damage that issue is yet to come off although the you know in that respect the legal battle as far as percy is concerned is drawn to a close in and many many people around the world had paid their hopes on the. ground of appealing hope that we would succeed but i don't think it ends the war the war's going to continue continue in a different form i think this is a matter that parliament needs seriously to look at the intact it for now we're going to say in this country that you can give patents to people that allow them to control organisms that spread themselves around that raises implications that were raised in this case that need to be addressed by parliament and i hope their advice to do so. but i want to

ask you a question as being reported by our national broadcaster this morning that there supreme court ruled that you deliberately. planted and jeanette. we ought of modified monsanto receipt in your crops and i just want to know if this is a correct report or if you could straighten the record for that for once and for all in my view if you're not planting something intending to grow around a brady crop meaning some crop you're intending to spray with round up. you know i don't see where that goes but as far as the supreme court was concerned the lower courts. got to the cultivation of plants with the gene it was sufficient to be infringement could be as a personal as i said it's a personal victory. six years of legal battle when we stood up to monsanto back in one thousand nine hundred eight we never realize it would ever go this far and then when the other point i'd like to make. a special comments from that it was

about the biotech industry you always have to remember monsanto late the lawsuit against me i did not play the lawsuit against monsanto they were the ones to start it and then we took my wife and i took the position that a farmer should never ever let loose a straight since he used to see from year to year and that was the basis we fought that for the rights of bombers did. you ever think. of. one sad post patent on the gene is valid and where ever that gina right by what ever means in any higher light form they owned and controlled that light for and when i used that term higher life forms i don't only mean seeds or plants if birds eat animals even

a human being so now we have more questions than we have actors in canada and regards who owns the light. didn't. me. since two thousand and four percy schmeiser has not planted canola on his farm and is growing wheat oats and peace instead but increasingly there are volunteers or ground up resistant canola on his fields he informed monsanto which tested the plants and confirmed them as being their patrons of canola but they would not remove the plants unless a full release a non-disclosure agreement was signed and in their release form first of all they

said we can never ever talk to anyone to the press or i knew what the terms of settlement work and he wanted us to sign give all or rights away well that was no we were going to do that his knew we would give her our freedom of speech or we edit it you know and then take. it out he wanted us that we could never take him to court for the rest of our lives and it wasn't we perceive myself it was our children and they what they would have to their take side to that it would different speak anything wrong expense and and that's a reason why we didn't want to sign it because there is no we want to give it our rights away to a corporation. points out is that ok we won't remove the plants then that i call point out will then we are going to remove my will get help and we will move remove the plant and we will send you a bit more tackle immediately send us an e-mail and said you're not allowed to do

to those plants whatever you want because they're our property so i told them it's your property it's on my property. we own the land we pay the taxes get your property off our land. percy hired a neighbor to remove the plants and sent the bill to months on so over a total amount of six hundred canadian dollars monsanto refused to pay and luis miser filed a claim in the local small claims court. can you imagine the end there is going to monsanto a billion dollar corporation coming to court for six hundred dollars but five minutes before the trial not sad to agreed to settle out of court and they agreed that there would be no gag order my wife and i could talk about it i could talk to you about it here tonight so it was not only a great victory for ourselves but now would open it up for all farmers in every part of the world if you were contaminated you now have an avenue where you can

take my cat and not only monsanto you could take syngenta dupont to court if you were contaminate contaminated because now if president has been established. when i travel around the world and i need so many people so many organizations that have such a dedication they went good food they want safe food and they don't want the environment our air our land our soil contaminated with poisons and then when i see how hard these people work and for what they believe in he gives me the courage and the strength to carry on.

hey tom are in here broadcasting live from washington d.c.

coming up today on the big picture. wealthy british style. sometimes. market finance scandals find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into all kinds of reports on our cheap.