this is r t live from moscow and the let's take a look at the top stories of the week now western military initiatives in north africa backfire and hold was a french president already losing public trust over what's described as his colonial ambitions. it's one of years since a deadly explosion at a drilling platform in the gulf of mexico killed eleven and caused a major oil spill coastal residents exposed to toxic chemicals say have been left to deal with severe health problems all on their own. and christians around the

world are united in east resell abrasions with thousands flocking to a service at russia's main orthodox cathedral. on that's the second part of a report on one american farmer who's fighting against a massive multinational corporation that produces genetically modified foods. in japan i met with a lot of scientists consumers and processors and importers and this document here is a can gets worsham 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. or was not sad obvious use the term substantially quadrant of the food is very

similar but the japanese scientists say that it is not substantially covered that food is different and that you have changed in a true genetic engineering or a 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're viruses and 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 about eating it in other words what month satrapi sent it to our governments in north america is false and that it is not safe ever it's not substantially cloven 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 difficult to segregate the grain crumb regular grain and it kid that it altered brain because you have contamination from the hip 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 seed into the whole world. if you introduce most 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 of the farmer has to do is leave a buffer 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 it all becomes after several years and to give you an example how bad it is in canada we no longer have any pure razzi we no longer have any pure saria it is 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 more was and you know 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 in ninety five they said in five years i honestly 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

where all the seed growers did they push the product on the farmers so they can 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 in one thousand nine hundred sixty it all changed and it's interesting that the way monsanto seems to enforce this thing is they go into the countryside and they try to determine who is clean in their own seed corn so you can clean 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 but 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 that human kind of spent. eons developing

you know we took the soybean ten thousand years ago from nothing to what it is today and in 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 conventional versions of the seed and say yeah we own this too that's nonsense that belongs to humankind and in my mind. you know on center what's the called pirates are farmers to save their own sea pirates 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 c.d.o. become service of the land and we're back to a feudal 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 who already are in the service of the land already because he have to buy the cd 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 on their lot on their own land so i think already to our large degree 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 of 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 costs.

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 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 and you 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're being used like a laboratory experiment where you can use those 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 and or corn you have to be aware of because you

know slightly contain transgenic or g.m. products. in canada it was approved by the canadian food inspection agency they are the ones that give monsanto regulatory approval for the introduction but they only used the data supplied to them by months winter. they never did no testing whatsoever and so. when months satis said to the canadian prudent speciale agency it's substantially quint it's almost like a real food then the government said well then we don't have to test it if it's substantially public we don't have to have our own scientists check that they had no testing whatsoever and that had really created a lot of peer in the canadian consumers because what are they really eating when monsanto said it was

a one month and or has are 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 they say a g m o's or g.e. or genetic engineering you say i would never trust them one bit because they don't have a good track record because everything they said before earth falls and all are. also in the case of months such as herbicide rhondda 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 of roundup glyphosate monsanto itself warns the material safety data sheets of tissue damage bloody vomiting cardiac arrhythmia and pulmonary edema as a result of direct contact or ingestion of the toxin. and though the a prone that round up studies done in oregon shows that it is the third

biggest commerce how from related illnesses in the state of california and eventually it originally we were told by month central roundup is so safe you could drink it. with the advent of gene technology the chemical industry entered into the business of plant breeding dupont's and months until what's. 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 hide 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. monsanto for all you have said. that they own anything to put that cd in or they develop what about if you put a gene into a human being president say they own me as that cd or knew.

that i was from one end of south africa whether was john as were girl gerben or her cape town cape town where the parliament is that i was invited to speak there and then any incident happened in it or at the parliament and i'll never forget in town 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 when i went face to face in two months how does representatives 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 the my face said nobody stands up to monsanto we're going to get you and we're going to be stronger you and know what 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 cara for a million dollars and for all their car cars because they said i was stubborn i was arrogant i didn't do what nonsense. wanted and after another year of trial they judge the same judge as the first one that they had in the federal court or what it once had a 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 patient owned by month's times of corporation by illegally ceding his canola which was contaminated with months on toes d.m.o. seen and two because he did not actively use the patient is not required to pay any

damages two months ago. at the same time as the judgment is being announced in ottawa versus meister and his lawyer terri's a christie give a press conference in saskatoon there was you know of approximately 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'm really feel that the fact that i can save me farm save main home without 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. 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 place. where it says she cries or loses a court battle to monsanto 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 you know what was and time only callen i'm sure that this free in 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 it put your genes into or anything to put there perhaps or that's the way it stands right now also some people legal people have expressed that and then it was 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 puts up an environment that the pair ate 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 was dispensed talking with nathan busch the wonderful until 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 encouraging encouragement but he said what now has to happen is that monsanto could farmers could break monsanto. if every farmer would turn up once hand and say i think there are some of your g.m.o. canola or sort of beans i might kill come and get it we don't want it here or i've had some of the most seeds north or being sorry my seed and get it how it wants how to be able to take its plant out over farmers through how would they know if it can or plant when it's to see just sane and to farmers to say so much how to couldn't

they couldn't do it. the ground of appeal that we were wanting to weigh in on was the one that would say dad 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 patented material that escapes and causes damage that issue is yet to come out although the you know in that respect the legal battle as far as percy is concerned is trying to a close in 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 is going to continue continue in a different form i think this is a matter that parliament needs seriously to look at the impact it for now 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 and chanelle. we ought of modified monsanto's seed 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 it ready 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 in the lower courts. to that to the cultivation of plants with the gene in it was sufficient to

be infringement judy as a personal as i said it's a personal victory. six years of legal battle when we stood up to monsanto back in ninety ninety 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 with 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 is used to see from year to year and that was the basis we fought that for the right so farmers didn't. want your things they.

want saddle this patent on a gene is valid and where ever that gene or rights by whatever means in any higher light form they own and control that white board and when i used the term higher life forms i don't only mean seeds or plant if birds these animals even a human being so now we have more questions than we have actors in canada and regards who owns the light. i didn't. see. it. since two thousand and four percy schmeiser has not played at canola on his farm and is growing wheat oats and peace instead but

increasingly there are volunteers of ground up resistant canola on his fields he informed monsanto which tested the plants and confirmed them as being there payton said 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 they wanted us to sign give all our rights away well that was no we were going to do that he knew we would give her our freedom of speech away any you know and their cake. and they want it i said we could never take them to court for the rest of our lives and it wasn't what we perceive myself it was our children they what they did they would act as their pick side to that it would never speak anything wrong expense and and that's a reason why we don't want to sign it because there is no we want to give it our

right to it to a corporation. point out or said ok we won't remove the plants then that i call points out will then we are going to remove my we'll get help and we will move we move the plant and we will send you a bit more sample 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 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 son so for 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 by five minutes before the trial might sadhu 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 it opened 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 meet so many people so many organizations that have such a dedication they one good food they want saith 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.

hungry for the full story we've got it first hand the biggest issues get the human voice face to face with the news makers.