If the law protected individuals from unfair corporate practises without requiring expensive legal action to intervene, the courts would not be so busy.

I have been in contact with other victims of persecution but the Nelson case http://www.nelsonfarm.net/ is interesting.
To quote some key elements:

- Monsanto continues its lawsuit against a North Dakota family farm, despite an independent body’s ruling that it found no evidence of wrongdoing.
- "They (Monsanto) haven’t got any evidence," says Mark Fraase, the attorney representing the Nelsons. "They can’t gather any, yet they persist."

- The North Dakota State Seed Arbitration Board found no support for Monsanto’s claims in its March 27 hearing on the matter. "The evidence does not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Nelson Farm is infringing on any Monsanto patents for RR soybeans by planting, growing, and harvesting unlicensed saved RR soybean seed without authorization from Monsanto, or that Nelson Farm will continue to so infringe. Nelson Farm did not plant any saved RR soybean seed in 1998, 1999, or 2000," according to the non-binding Board ruling. Representatives for Monsanto were absent. The Seed Arbitration Board frowned on Monsanto’s actions in the case. According to its decision: "Nelson Farm has been cooperative with Monsanto in its investigations and testing. Monsanto, however, has not been very cooperative with Nelson Farm, withholding information on tests, not telling Nelson Farm where it sampled for testing in 1999, and failing to attend an arbitration hearing requested by Nelson Farm to define and resolve seed dispute issues."

- Perhaps more troubling, he says, is the fact that 40 percent of the fields that Monsanto claims it tested weren’t on the Nelsons’ farm.

Monsanto not only pursued legal action and dragged it out for years but sent letters to seed distributors banning Nelsons from purchasing any Monsanto products. It was persecution against a farmer stating the poor performance of GM.

Terry Boehm is indeed as you say very involved in politics. It is just that he represents only a small fraction of all Canadian farmers and hardly any of the canola acreage.

The seed graders retain a sample of seed that is treated. This is normal business practice and helps ensure that the right seed gets back out to the grower concerned (varieties can be checked for example). But this practice does not allow the companies to determine who is growing GM seed as you were claiming.

I think I have already demonstrated there are plenty of non-GM varieties registered in Canada. Why would the seed companies be wanting to introduce lots more non HT varieties that no one wants to plant? It makes no sense.

Non-GM farmer “Clearfield is treated as GM, regulated as GM, charged like GM”
Non-GM farmer “I did not say Clearfield was GM”

I didn’t say you said Clearfield was GM.

Agronomist “You don’t regard it as GM and neither do markets.”

So now you want to accuse me of saying things I didn’t say.

Non-GM farmer “There is no doubting that Percy deliberately selected for the RR trait”

Were you swindled then when you paid for Percy Schmeiser to tell a bunch of lies to Australian farmers?

The Nelsons are old news. They settled out of court in 2001. We won’t know the full details because of the confidentiality clauses in the settlement.

It is very very important for farmers to know the legal implications of patents and patent collection associated with GM crops.
Percy established by very lengthy and expensive legal defence that the patent owner owns the patent even if it arrives on farm by accidental means and the farmer has not signed the contract. Percy did not apply glyphosate and hence did not use the GM trait and, contrary to the claim by Monsanto, he legally established that farmers are not required to pay for the trait if they don't use it.
Many Australians have not heard of the aggressive bullyboy tactics adopted by Monsanto to collect royalties and the Nelson case is a classic example.
Australian farmers do not need to worry about being sued, our concern is how the end point royalties are going to be deducted because, unlike Canada and USA, Australia signed the UPOV 91 International Treaty accepting EPR's as an acceptable method of research payments. With EPR's the patent owner can deduct their payment from our grain payments when we deliver our grain. If we object, we must sue the company to recover our money.
How is an EPR going to work with GM?
Brazil uses EPR and even non-GM farmers pay if their grain triggers a positive test. That is anticompetitive practise and must be prevented

Julie, I notice that you have been ignoring the questions I have been posing and continuing to spout nonsense. Therefore, I take it that you agree that:

1) Percy Schmeiser deliberately planted 1000 acres of his farm to Roundup Ready canola and his claims to have been "picked on" by Monsanto are just so much posturing.

2) Canadian canola yields are continuing to increase, despite their adoption of GM canola.

3) Australian canola yields are not increasing, despite 100% of the crop remaining non-GM.

4) That atrazine and simazine can no longer be used legally in the EU.

5) That it is possible for Canadian canola growers to grow non-GM canola, just that most of them don't want to do so.

6) That Canada continues to be able to sell its Canola to many countries.

7) That more herbicides are used on Atrazine resistant canola in Australia than are used on Roundup Ready canola in Canada.

8) That Canadian canola growers report aditional yield and profict out of growing GM canola.

Now next time, you can safely leave these topics alone and I won't have to keep pointing you to the evidence supporting the statements.

As to the Nelsons, as I have said, they settled out of court in 2001 and a confidentiality statement means we will never know exactly what happened. Given that continued speculation now is useless.

No, I agree that:
- That governments, scientists and industry players should not be subserviant to their GM agribusiness patrons because it sacrifices truth and fair risk management.
- The GM industry should be responsible for reimbursing any farmer that suffers economic loss from GM.
- That farmers must be aware of the laws surrounding GM crop patents and fair risk management should be introduced to avoid adverse unfair impacts.
- That independent performance testing of GM crops should be performed prior to any lifting of the moratoria as contracts prevent independent trials once commercialised.
- That independent health testing should be performed prior to any acceptance by regulatory bodies as "safe".
- That GM products should all be labelled.
- That Australian conditions are very different to Canadian conditions and therefore weed comparisons and control need to be taken into perspective.
- That Canadian and US yields did NOT improve when GM canola was adopted.
- That an increase in costs and market rejection, with no yield improvement equates to a negative financial figure for farmers.
- That you are extremely biased on the pro-GM side and we will continue to have a difference of opinion until we can resolve the issues related to commercial release rather than ignore them.

Julie, so you disagree with me on all these points? Just to help you and readers out I provide a list of resources for each point. At least it will keep the resources together.

1) Percy Schmeiser deliberately planted 1000 acres of his farm to Roundup Ready canola and his claims to have been "picked on" by Monsanto are just so much posturing.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

2) Canadian canola yields are continuing to increase, despite their adoption of GM canola.

http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.aspx

3) Australian canola yields are not increasing, despite 100% of the crop remaining non-GM.

http://abareonlineshop.com/Pdffiles/acs07.pdf page 178

4) That atrazine and simazine can no longer be used legally in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/oj_atrazine.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/oj_simazine.pdf

5) That it is possible for Canadian canola growers to grow non-GM canola, just that most of them don't want to do so.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/variet/rapecole.shtml

6) That Canada continues to be able to sell its Canola to many countries.

http://www.canola-council.org/seed_exports_historic.aspx

7) That more herbicides are used on Atrazine resistant canola in Australia than are used on Roundup Ready canola in Canada.

http://www.croplifeaustralia.org.au/files/biotechnology/information/Conservation%20farming%20systems%20and%20canola%20final%20report.pdf
http://www.monsanto.ca/_pdfs/labels_msds/ru_wmax_label_english.pdf page 27
http://www.monsanto.ca/seeds_traits/roundup_ready/canola/programs.asp

8) That Canadian canola growers report additional yield and profit out of growing GM canola.

http://www.canola-council.org/facts_gmo.aspx
http://www.canola-council.org/gmo_toc.aspx

So rather than deal with all those other issues you have raised, at the moment I want to get these old ones dealt with. So next time you raise these points I will be able to state correctly that you know what you are saying is untrue.

Thanx