canola drifted into percy schmeiser spiels his work of fifty years of breeding was destroyed because its harvest was contaminated by monsanto seed. but on top of that monsanto turned him the victim into a culprit august nine hundred ninety eight schmeiser was sued by months on joe for having illegally planted the corporations paid into g.m.o. canola. he was to be forced by a court decision to pay damages in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars and all this for a canola seed he did not want in the first place. under the patent law it says to violate a patent you have to use the patent in my case and never use monsanto's patent. i never strayed their chemical round up on my fields so i never used their patent. but percy schmeiser would not let himself be intimidated he filed a counter suit against the chemical called brazen and grounds of environmental pollution see destruction and slander from that time on one side oh how the small wheat farmer spied on a pursuit like a criminal. in summer ninety ninety nine the situation became even more menacing for days detectives with cars w

after this decision percy schmeiser and his wife were very demoralized just like many farmers who had been following the case percy decided to appeal the ruling and took the case to the higher court but after two more years of legal battles the no three hundred photos in canadian dollars of legal expenses the judges again ruled if you were contaminated with months sometimes genes you no longer own your seeds and plants then we only had one avenue left and that was the supreme court of canada first of all we said to the supreme court that a farmer always should have the right to use his seeds from year to year if on his own farm and the most had partnership to my wife and myself by that time was that no one no corporation no individual should ever have the right to put a patent on higher life forms like a seed or plant. when i use the term higher life form i mean any lifeform whether it's a bird be an animal face or even a human being. if you have a patent on that gene that's in doubt poland and i guess in your field you don't longer own your seeds or plants so you could have one plant

but percy schmeiser would not let himself be intimidated he filed a counter suit against the chemical called brazen and grounds of environmental pollution see destruction and slander from that time on month sato had the small wheat farmer spied on and pursued like a criminal. in summer ninety nine hundred nine the situation became even more menacing for days detectives with cars were in front of smiters driveway following him onto the fields and observing his every footstep. and we found out afterwards by taking license numbers that they were people hired by monsanto and also monsanto representatives himself they didn't even stop by the people they would even drive into our yard here and i don't know if it was just. a myth. heaven kennedy or whatever but these are things that happen. he did everything to bring a stone financially eminently and that's what they're doing is to mentally and financially break people. just the are totally ruthless they have no ethics they have no morals it's the bottom line. and. i had a trust fund to help pay for some of my legal bills and some time ago i

mark was is an organic farmer a neighbor of percy schmeiser together with a thousand organic farmers he sued monsanto if a democrat is 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 lab 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 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

seat without paying license fees much like percy schmeiser his family had to come up with four hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses and finally after several years of legal battles agreed to settle with monsanto including a provision to keep silent about his case he is now advising farmers threatened by months like david runyan the first thing i advise a farmer who has non g.m.o. soybeans is you must have third party sampling and testing of your crop because monsanto's can falsify the results of your soybeans. the farmer actually most at risk in these situations is the farmer not growing the g.m.o. so it. because now he has to in fact prove his innocence that's the opposite of what people think you know our legal system does here in america innocent till proven guilty well maybe so in a criminal situation i don't know but i can tell you when you're in a civil fight with a company like monsanto it is up to you to prove you did not in fact do what they're accusing you of. the majority of farmers i speak with. they they don't have the financial wherewithal to fight these battles. a

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 of roundup 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 and 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 are i knew what the terms of settlement work and he wanted us to sign give all or rights away well that was no way we're going to do that this new way we give our freedom of speech or we end it and then take they would. they wanted us that we could never take them to court for the rest of our lives and it wasn't only pretty myself it was our children they what that did they would add to that the sign of the two that they would never speak if you're wrong it's been said and that's a reason why we didn't want to sign it because there's no we want to give it right away to a corporation. one thousand said