Dear Demeter and Stellar Members,

The Demeter Association has joined a group of approximately 50 membership organizations, seed distributors and farmers/farms in a suit challenging the chemical giant Monsanto Company’s patents on genetically engineered seed , commonly referred to as GMO or genetically modified seed.  We have thoughtfully entered into this action to preemptively protect our members and non-GMO farmers in general from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.  We are sure you are aware that in the past, Monsanto has indeed taken this aggressive course of action.

The case was filed on Tuesday March 29, 2011, in federal district court in Manhattan.  In addition to Demeter, the plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it.  Some Demeter members are amongst the plaintiff group.

“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s genetically modified seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by GM seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”

As our members are well aware, once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop.  Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, canola and alfalfa now face such a fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too.  Monsanto is developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.

In the case, PUBPAT is asking the court to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement.  One reason for this result is that Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law.  Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false.

“Some say genetically modified seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that’s not possible, and it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher.  “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB’s and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says genetically modified seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”

We will keep you involved in what will surely be a long drawn out court case.  Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns.  Talking points regarding the suit follow, as does information about the legal firm taking this action.  Should you be queried about the suit, consider this language that you are welcome to use.

Sincerely,

The Demeter Board and Staff

If you eat meat, the odds are high that you’ve enjoyed a meal made from an animal raised on a factory farm (also known as a CAFO). According to the USDA, 2% of U.S. livestock facilities raise an estimated 40% of all farm animals. This means that pigs, chickens and cows are concentrated in a small number of very large farms. But even if you’re a vegetarian, the health and environmental repercussions of these facilities may affect you. In his book Animal Factory, journalist David Kirby explores the problems of factory farms, from untreated animal waste to polluted waterways. Kirby talks to TIME about large-scale industrial farming, the lack of government oversight and the terrible fate of a North Carolina river.

What exactly is a factory farm?

The industrial model for animal food production first started with the poultry industry. In the 1930s and ‘40s, large companies got into the farming business. The companies hire farmers to grow the animals for them. The farmers typically don’t own the animals—the companies do. It’s almost like a sharecropping system. The company tells them exactly how to build the farm, what to grow and what to feed. They manage everything right down to what temperature the barn should be and what day the animals are going to be picked up for slaughter. The farmer can’t even eat his or her own animals. People who grow chickens for Perdue in Maryland have to go down to the market and buy Perdue at the store.

We collectively refer to these facilities as factory farms, but that’s not an official name. The government designation is CAFO, which stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Basically, it’s any farm that has 1,000 animal units or more. A beef cow is an animal unit. These animals are kept in pens their entire lives. They’re never outside. They never breathe fresh air. They never see the sun.

[READ FULL ARTICLE]

Submit a public comment

California is on the verge of approving a potent carcinogenic gas for use on strawberry fields and other food crops. The chemical—methyl iodide—is so toxic that scientists in labs use only small amounts with special protective equipment, yet agricultural applications mean it could be released directly into the air and water.

On April 30, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation proposed that the state approve use of methyl iodide for agricultural purposes, despite ongoing outcry from prominent scientists and the general public. Arysta LifeScience, a manufacturer of the chemical and the world’s largest privately-held pesticide company, has invested in a substantial lobbying campaign to gain approval in one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions.

Methyl iodide has been subject to ongoing controversy in its approval process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved methyl iodide for agricultural use in 2007, amid criticism from more than 50 prominent scientists that the process was hidden from public view and the research focus was too limited. California followed with its own review. Even though a report from an independent panel of scientists in the California study declared that “methyl iodide is a highly toxic chemical and we expect that any anticipated scenario for the agricultural or structural fumigation use of this agent would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on public health,” the Department of Pesticide Regulation nonetheless proposed that the chemical be approved.

There is little to debate about methyl iodide’s toxicity. It is a known neurotoxin, disrupts thyroid function, damages developing fetuses, and has caused lung tumors in laboratory animals. California already classifies it as a human carcinogen. Fumigating fields with the gas—even with the strictest regulations—would no doubt still result in unacceptable exposures to farmworkers and and surrounding populations.

We have one last chance to stop methyl iodide from being used on our food. The DPR is accepting public comments on its proposal through June 14. Submit your comment today and send the incontrovertible message that we don’t want the public or our food exposed to this poison.

Submit a public comment