watch this broadcast live as it airs at r.t. dot com slash usa and when you feel this is out of focus from washington tonight. we have seen the damage your dad's done to the environment mark let me close with the power of props we do not want any more of. our core system it's just there was abysmal experience and i'm just i'm just appalled that that's allowed to go on. eating this unfortunately because we don't know what's in it and there's no labeling there for it being used like oratory experiment i'm used to getting.

more questions than answers. in like. a charmer in here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture. in japan i met with a lot of scientists consumer. yes and co-sponsors and in part of this and

this document here is a couldn't get its version 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 of the food part of g.m. or was monsanto always used the term substantially quadrant of the food is very similar but the japanese scientists say that it is not substantially cloven that 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 they are viruses and the bacteria that they use for the transfer in their genes are also in that food so it is not the same and it could have very possible long range health effects about eating eggs in other words what

monsanto presented to our governments in north america is false and that it is not safe and it's not substantially 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 you know it is too late. it's very difficult to segregate the grain from regular grain and it could be called brain because you'd have contamination from the pit from the elevation from the trucks that are hauling it so it would be impossible to keep it separate so there's 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 seed into the whole world. if you introduce most there is no such thing as coexistence and after several years it all becomes g.m.o. foods i have also heard in europe the company is saying that all the farmer has to do is leave a buffer strip fifty meters one hundred meters there is no say distance it doesn't matter if it's fifty kilometers it will spread. so if you introduce g m o's it all becomes mo's 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 research it has now all g m o's 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 dmoz and you know no longer can have an organic farmer. they want control ok and they basically have control is what they have first they

go in and they bought our seeds stay seed 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 if they told them you will be selling ninety percent monsanto product or you will not be in business selling seed so if they do not push monsanto's 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 sign. is they go into the countryside and they try to determine who is clean in their own seed for saving and

clean your own seed for reclaiming 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 the human kind of spent. eons developing. you know we took the soybean ten thousand years ago from not them to what it is today and then monsanto comes along and search one little gene and then then they turn around and patent all the germ plasm not just the g.m.o. but the the can restore the fortunes of the seed and say yeah we own this too that's nonsense that belongs to humankind and in my mind. you know monsanto what's the called pirates are farmers

a savior and so you pirates see 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 your own cd become service of poland and we're back to a futile system and that could quite easily be 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 the service of the land already because he have to buy the say from a certain company they have to buy the fertilizers they have to buy the chemicals especially for all from the same company they have to pay a fee to grow crops on their own land so i think already can do are largely agree we are already served on our own land by a 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 lib 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 no 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 i will who was very surprised to find out that when we do surveys in canada about 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 there seems to be no health effects

we see. people when you survey them when you ask them they don't want this we are 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 it 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 on from. they never did no testing whatsoever

and so when my sadness head to the canadian food inspection agency it's a satchel equant it's almost like a real food then the government said well then we don't have to test it if it's substantially cuebid we don't have to have our own scientists check and they had no testing whatsoever and that has really created a lot of peer and again in the canadian consumers because what are they really eating when monsanto said it was safe one month and who has a very bad track record when he was a p.c.b. were say he you know orange would say now we can believe them when they say a g.m.o. was or g.e. originated in she nearing it say i would never trust them one bit because they don't have a good track record because everything they said before or is false and a lie. also in the case of months santo's herbicide rwanda there were studies demonstrating that roundup could be used without risk resulting in

worldwide approval of the product many other studies so the negative health effects of the active ingredient to roundup life was eight months and so itself warns the material safety data sheets of tissue damage bloody vomiting cardiac arrhythmia and common rita deemer as a result of direct contact or ingestion of the toxin. and they'll be a pound that round up studies done in oregon shows that it is the third biggest carse now from related illnesses in the state of california and eventually it is originally we were told by monsanto roundup is so sate you could create it. with the advent of gene technology the chemical industry entered into the business of plant breeding dupont's a month santo butts. it 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. i said. that they own anything put that seed in already developed what about if you put a gene into a human being does that say they or me is that say they own you. but

i was from one end of south africa whether was john as were girl gerben or are cape town cape town where the parliament is at i was invited to speak there and then n. incident happened in and they were at the parliament and i'll never forget among one of monsanto's representatives also had given a small presentation and i had given a presentation regards how their seeds implants is how it could be contaminated and

coming out of the assembly the parliament assembly where i ran face to face into monsanto's representative from johannesburg and he and he was very very out of that i would say rude and a he said to me and shaking his face the my face 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 one santa launched another lawsuit against me tara 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 nots and. won it and after another year of trial the judge the same judge as the first one out ahead in the federal court or what it was had one hundred fifty three thousand dollars a court costs they didn't get

a million and so i am now faced with an additional costs if i would 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 patient owned by monsanto corporation by illegally seeding his canola which was contaminated with months on tows g.m.o. scene and two because he did not actively use the pavement is not required to pay any damages two months ago. at the same time as the judgment is being announced an auto a british miser and his lawyer terry's a christie give a press conference in saskatoon there was you know proximate two hundred thousand dollar 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 the plan that i can

save me save me home with no pain the cost of monsanto you know i was looking at a two hundred thousand dollar bill so that is a major victory to me in the court rules further the page and on the gene allows the owner to control the entire plant that is the pavement on the gene has priority over the ownership of the place. where it says rise or loses a court battle to monsanto and as i said just was talking to another lawyer that it could be the biggest win for us or for the people concerned approach emo's and time only cal and i'm sure that this from cork in four or five years will have to revisit because where the results of their decision could mean that occur. could control almost anything that the put your genes into anything to put their facts out that's the way it stands right now also some people legal people have expressed

that they need with a wife decision that eventually now monsanto will be faced to be able to have to control what they put into the environment for although i built the issue and if they put up an environment that a parent ate and it's no they can't control they'll take a second look at it your key person in there and you going to end up a massive lawsuit which can break the company. i was just been talking with nathan bush the wonderful until yesterday and he was really telling me he said i had to prepare three yesterday and he said that we should want to carry and to really give them a clear encouraging encouragement but he said what now has happened is that once handed could farmers could break monsanto. hey if every farmer with four not wants

hand and say i think they're some of your g.m. or canola or so beans of my people come and get it we don't want it here horror i dare say i we think some of your g.m.o. seeds are canola store being sorry my seeds come and get it how it wants how to be able to take a plant out over time or through how would they know if it could all plant when its status same and or far was the same so might sound a couldn't they couldn't do it. so. the ground of appeal that we were wanting to win on was one that would say that you know just because you haven't had to or gene or a cell that doesn't give you a pattern to apply to the other part of the problem is what what responsibilities do biotech companies have to farmers for patented material that escapes and causes damage daddy issue is yet to come up although the you know in that respect

the legal battle as far as percy is concerned is drawing to a close and many many people around the world had paid their hopes on that ground of appeal in the 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 impact if we're going to say in this country that you can get 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 has been reported by our national broadcaster this morning that the supreme court ruled that you deliberately. supplanted it jeanette. the art of modified monsanto seed in your crops and i just want to know if this is

a correct report or if you could straighten the record and for that for once and for all in my view if you're not planting something intending to grow a roundup ready crop meaning some crop you're intending to spray with roundup of you know i don't see where that goes but as far as the supreme court was conservative the lower courts are large chunks of that to the cultivation of class with the gene it was sufficient to be infringement today as a personal as i said it's a personal victory. six years of legal battle when we stood up to my santo back in one nine hundred ninety eight we never realize it would ever go this far and then when the other point i'd like to make. especially 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 lose his rights who's used to seed from year to year and that was the basis we thought that for the rates obama is going to be. the one that actually. wants out of postpartum and the gene is valid and wherever that tina rice by whatever means and any higher like form they own and control that like pork and when i used the term higher life forms i don't only mean seek to plant if birds eat animals even a human being so now we have more questions than we have actors in canada and regards who owns like.

me league since two thousand and four percy smiles or has not planted canola on his farm and is growing wheat oats and peace instead but increasingly there are volunteers of brown dog 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 that 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 to give all or rights away well that it's

no way we're going to do that he just knew we would give her our freedom of speech are we any you know and then take the. they wanted us that we could never take them to court for the rest of our lives and it wasn't only perceive myself it was our children they what they would have to their take side with to that they would never speak to your arguments and and that's a reason why we don't want to sign it because there's no we want to give it a right so we can a corporation. one thousand said ok we won't remove the plates then they call points out all then we are going to remove my will get help and we will move remove the plant and we will send you the bill it might sound good you need at least 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 want the land we pay the taxes get your property off our land.

first he hired a neighbor to remove the plants and sent the bill to month sent over a total amount of six hundred canadian dollars one son so refused to pay and luis miser filed a claim in the local small claims court. can you imagine being bearish going to my town till a billion dollar corporation come to court for six hundred dollars by five minutes before the trial might sound 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 you can make 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 are contaminated you know have an avenue where you can take my cat and not only monsanto you could take syngenta dupont to court if you are contaminate contaminate it because no if president has been established.

when i travel around the world and i meet so many people so many organizations that have such a dedication they won 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 a right they believe in he gives me the courage and the strength to carry on.

it's about

.