From Bloomberg

The approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency permits most farmers in the two countries to reduce their so-called refuge of conventional corn to 5 percent of biotech acres, from 20 percent, St. Louis-based Monsanto and Midland, Michigan-based Monsanto said today in a statement. The companies expect as many as 4 million acres will be planted with the new seed next year.

“The 5 percent refuge for SmartStax will give farmers a tremendous advantage to increase whole-farm corn yield 5 to 10 percent,” said Monsanto CTO Robb Fraley.

With the human population quickly reaching the limit of current food production capacity, this breakthrough is sure to give us more time before we are forced to emigrate from Earth.

AUGUSTA – The giant chemical maker Monsanto has failed in its attempt to convince the state of Maine to abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program for milk, which the state adopted in 1994. Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe has informed Monsanto that the use of the seal is entirely appropriate for the Maine milk market. “Consumer choice is not impaired in any way,” Rowe told Monsanto. “Rather, consumer choice is broadened.” Monsanto had requested that the use of the seal be suspended and legal proceedings brought against Oakhurst and H.P. Hood for alleged unfair trade practices.

The chemical company maintained that use of the seal, which indicates that milk does not contain artificial growth hormones, misleads consumers into thinking that hormone-free milk is superior to milk from producers using rBST, a Monsanto-produced artificial growth hormone. Monsanto said that using rBST in cows is a marketing issue, not a food safety issue. Industry experts suggested that even though the seal has been used for nearly 10 years by Oakhurst, Monsanto was objecting now because other dairies are also joining the program. Some organizations and consumers who oppose the use of artificial growth hormones claim they are linked to breast cancer and premature puberty in children.

Canada and the European Union have banned the use of rBST since it was approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993. Rowe informed Monsanto earlier this month that the Quality Seal requirements are being met by all producers that use it. Rowe also said that providing the information on the label is just giving consumers a choice. Maine’s Agriculture Commissioner Robert Spear agreed. “The dairy Quality Trademark Seal was a compromise.

Instead of either banning the use of growth hormones or endorsing their use, producers could take a stand via the Quality Seal,” he said. “We agree that advertisements that make specific health claims about rBST or the lack of rBST could be misleading unless they are substantiated by competent scientific or medical tests or studies. However, the mere statement that a product comes from cows not treated with rBST or artificial growth hormones, however, is not a health claim requiring substantiation,” the letter from Rowe to Monsanto stated. The trademark consists of a silhouette of the state of Maine divided into three horizontal sections, with the word “Quality” appearing in the middle section. “The state of Maine Quality Trademark, in and of itself, is not misleading to consumers,” Monsanto was told. “Nor do we believe that advertising milk as having come from cows that have not been treated with rBST or artificial growth hormones is misleading to consumers.

Such statements do not constitute health claims of any sort. This advertising simply allows consumers, who are interested for any reason in buying milk that is not produced from cows treated with rBST, to make an informed decision.” Rep. Nancy Smith, D-Monmouth, said the ruling by Rowe “is a great victory and should be shouted from the rooftops.

This is a major victory for Maine’s milk producers and an integral part of marketing Maine milk.” Jodie Bernstein of Bryan Cave law firm of St. Louis represents Monsanto, the Biotechnology Association of Maine and three dairy farms. Recognizing that consumers may not even be aware that the small seal on milk labels indicates rBST-free milk, Bernstein said Tuesday that “it’s not the seal the coalition was objecting to but rather the criteria for using the seal.” Bernstein’s position is that since the state accepts affidavits from farmers that they are not using rBST, there is not an adequate monitoring system in place.

In addition, said Bernstein, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that any label that says the product is rBST-free should appear in the proper context with accompanying information, such as “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows.” FDA also recommends that such a statement should be conspicuously placed on the product label. “The coalition, although disappointed, remains committed to promoting a nonmisleading label,” said Bernstein. She said that taking legal action against dairies that say their milk is rBST-free on their labels and in their advertising “is still under consideration, but we are not to that point yet.” Monsanto notified Maine in November and December 2002 that it wanted the seal dropped.

The company raised three issues: whether the requirements established by the Maine Department of Agriculture’s rules for the use of the trademark are being met by the dairies that are licensed to use it; whether the trademark and-or the advertising by these licensed dairies are misleading to consumers by creating a false impression that milk produced without the use of rBST is safer or of higher quality than milk produced with its use; and whether the trademark unfairly limits or otherwise unlawfully restricts market access. The Maine Department of Agriculture also notified Monsanto that all requirements of the seal are being met by dairies using it. The requirements include that at least 80 percent of the milk in any package displaying the trademark must be produced within the state of Maine, and that 100 percent of the milk in that package must be from cows that have not been treated with rBST.

In other news a Canadian farmer named Percy Schmeiser was sued for $15 per acre after his farm was contaminated by Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready Canola without him buying the seeds. Unlike the hundreds of American farmers who have had to settle outside court, 68 year old Schmeiser decided he wasn’t going to pay a penny, and he won. It probably helped that he was Mayor of Bruno and was a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Provincial Legislature. However, it came at a cost. Schmeiser had to spend over $200,000 in court to defend himself.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

http://www.biotech-info.net/monsantos_win.html

That is what is happening with Monsanto agricultural company. But this isn’t just limited to the United States; after the US invaded Iraq Iraqi farmers were forbidden from storing their own seeds that they had developed over hundreds perhaps thousands of years, and they were taken away. Monsanto has patented many seed varieties created by hundreds of groups of people and also create their own genetically “enhanced versions”. Iraqi farmers now must pay for their seed (in essence buy from Monsanto). In Brazil Monsanto is trying to sue farmers in Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina for “pirating” their seed technology.

This Monsanto is the same that developed such chemicals as Agent Orange, Aspartine (suger-free but not cancer-free), and bovine growth hormnes. In regards to the company’s motive, is it really what its website claims: “helping farmers to produce more while conserving more”? Perhaps, but it certainly isn’t too concerned about the safety of the people it’s products affect. In fact, Monsanto buried thousands of pounds of PCBs (poisonous chemicals) in the grounds of Alabama. They also poisioned the area’s water supply:

In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one.

Regardless, they continued to poison the area for around 40 years and continued lobbyist efforts to preserve its production years after PCBs were labeled a global pollutant. One can read about Monsanto’s Alabama poisoning incident if one Googles: “Monsanto PCB”.

I guess the worst part of Monsanto’s quest for world domination is that the foods it releases (Frankenfoods) do not come with labels. We know how to avoid one of Monsanto’s poisons (Aspartine) because there are labels. Monsanto’s genetically modified foods not only aren’t labeled but also can be mixed with safe foods.