this month learn from its mistakes. legacy. all the parts. for a while do if you just joined us than thirty minutes past the hour and they're fresh and counting on you're watching are just in time to see what i'll tell stories today. it's ready to assist peace talks and leave it to end months of fun and speed while nature is sending congress advisors to the country in a move soon find analysts as the first step to a ground invasion. and in all the talk news of the week russian police take down two major church charges in the south russia killing militant leaders with respect to the deadly bombings in moscow. and the massive gulf of mexico oil

spill is sparking allegations and court cases a year on put all those in charge play the blame game you know workers and coastal residents are starting to feel the health impact of the disaster. to stay with our two nights in the program where for some the lives of americans almost against signs companies quick to force genetically modified crops into the food chain. in japan i met with a lot of scientists consumers and processors and in partners and this document here is a can 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 the food part of g.m. or was monsanto always used the term substantially quadrant of the food is very similar to the japanese scientists say that it is not substantially above and their 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 you can have very harmful allergens or bacteria that because they are viruses and 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 eggs in other words what want satrapi sent it to our governments in north america is false and that it is not safe and it's not substantially quadrant 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 say brigade the grain chromed regular grain and it's good that he called her brain because he would have contamination from the head of 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 percentage or 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 g.m.o. those there is no such thing as coexistence and after several years it all becomes g.m.o. was i have also heard in europe a company saying that all 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 most it all becomes g m o'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 soria 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 tomatoes 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 no longer can have an organic farmer. eaten. they want control ok and they basically have control of what they have first they go in and they've bought our seeds stacey 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 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 what all the seed growers did they pushed the product on the farmers so that they could stay in business because if they went did not have holdings to grow their spread their seed stock they would not having to sell it it all changed it all changed overnight in one thousand nine hundred ninety six it all changed in him it's interesting that the way monsanto seems to enforce the 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 the the human kind of spent. eons developing you know we took the soybean ten thousand years ago from nothing 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 conventional 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 or 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 seed become service of the land and we're back to the people 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 has 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 they have to pay a fee to grow crops on their land on their own land so i think already to our large degree we are already started on our own land by a multinational corporation like monsanto.

mark was as an organic farmer a neighbor of first he smiles are together with a thousand organic farmers he sued monsanto for damages arising from the contamination of their canola a mustard crop. the thing is what should always happen just a precaution airy 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 costs.

when we were in switzerland last year one interesting thing is we had a journalist and one 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. 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 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 earth or corn you have to be aware of because it would most likely 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 on terms they never did no testing whatsoever and so when months sapper said to the canadian prudent speciale 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 quoted we don't have to have our own scientists check it 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 and months and who has a very bad track record when he was say p.c. bees were say a you know orange would say now are we to believe them when he state 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 has everything they said before was false and a lot. also in the case of monsanto's herbicide rhondda 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 life was 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 the a pound that round up studies done in oregon shows that it is the third biggest cars out from related illnesses in the state of california and eventually it originally we were told by monsanto all rounder is so safe 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 producers 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. monsanto for all you have said. that they own anything to put that seed in order to develop what about if you put i tuned into a human being this exhaling or me as that say they only knew.

i was from one end of south africa whether it was john as were girl girl in oregon or cape town cape town where the parliament he has ak i was invited to speak there and then an incident happened in it or at the parliament had i'll never forget i'm on 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 in two months had his representative from johannesburg and he he was very very. i would

say rude and a he said to me and shaking his face might 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 tariff for a million dollars and for all their car cars because they said i was stubborn i was arrogant i didn't do what mossad. one it and after another year of trial the judge the same judge has to first run out ahead in the federal court or what it might sound one hundred fifty feet thousand dollars a court cos they didn't get the 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 and those did decision one percy schmeiser did infringe

upon the pavement owned by months under a corporation by illegally ceding his canola which was contaminated with months antos g.m.o. scene and two because he did not actively use the paper 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 you know approximate 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 the plant. i can save me farm same a home with no pain that cost the monsanto you know i was looking at a two hundred thousand dollar bill so that is a major victory to me. the court rules for the a 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 surprise 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 about you most and time only cal and i'm sure that this for in court and for pride years will have to revisit because with the results up there at the station could mean that a corporate. it could control almost anything that you put your genes into or anything to put their patents are 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 could into the environment for although i built the issue and if they put something in an environment that the parent 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. and 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 phone up harry and really give them ok encouraging encouragement but he said what now has happened is that six months out of could farmers could break monsanto . hey if every farmer would for not much hand and say i think there are some of your g.m. or canola or sort of beings of my people come and get it we don't want it here or i wish i we had some of the seeds of cut all or two are being very nice he'd come and get it how it wants how to be able to take it out of

a farmer's field how would they know if it can or plant when it's to see just sane and the farmers the same so it might sound a couldn't they couldn't do it. the ground of appeal that we were wanting to win on was the one that would say that you know just because you have a patent too or gene or a cell that doesn't give you a patent to a plant the other part of the problem is what what responsibilities do biotech companies have to farmers for padded 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 drawing to a close in and many many people around the world have paid their hopes on that ground of appeal and 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 it from 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. planted it you know. 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 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 proper intending to sprayed with round up. you know i don't see

where that goes but as far as the supreme court was conservative the lower courts shawn said 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 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. especially the comments from that with both the biotech industry you always have to remember monsanto laid 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 fought that for the reds so palmers.

you're saying. one sadness patent on that gene is valid and wherever that tina rice by whatever means in any higher light form they own and control that light for and when i used to term higher life form i don't only mean seek your plant if birds these animals even a human being so now we have more questions then we have atrophied canada and regards who owns white.

me. 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 are browned up resistant canola on his fields he informed monsanto which tested the plants and confirmed them as being their patient and 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 he knew we would give her our freedom of speech are we any better you know and that take a lot they wanted us that we could never take them to court for the rest of our life and it wasn't only perceive myself it was our children they what they would

have to their peak cited to that they would never speak if you're wrong gets one thousand and that's a reason why we don't want to sign it because there is no we want to give it a right to eat a corporation. one thousand 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 fight and we will send you a bit more tackle immediately send us a levy on 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 month son so for a total amount of six hundred canadian dollars one son to refuse 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 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 work contaminated you know have been asking you where you can take what happened 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 one 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.

keep. it.