Monsanto lawsuit filed by farmers over GMO wheat

Monsanto is facing a lawsuit from US wheat farmers and food safety advocates over unauthorized GMO wheat found in an Oregon field. The lawsuit accuses Monsanto of failing to protect the market from contamination and lower prices, as some foreign buyers have shied away from US wheat

Mark Collier/AP/File
People chant and carry signs during a protest against Monsanto in front of the capitol building in Montpelier, Vt. last month. The biotech company is being sued by US wheat farmers over experimental wheat found growing in an Oregon field.

 American wheat farmers and a food safety advocacy group filed a lawsuit Thursday against biotech seed developer Monsanto Co, accusing the company of failing to protect the U.S. wheat market from contamination by its unauthorized wheat.

The petition, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, seeks class-action status to represent other farmers it says were harmed by lower wheat prices as some foreign buyers have shied away from U.S. wheat.

It names Clarmar Farms Inc., farmer Tom Stahl, and the Center for Food Safety as plaintiffs.

The suit follows a similar action filed Monday by a Kansas wheat farmer, alleging that he and other growers have been hurt financially by the discovery of an unapproved biotech wheat that Monsanto said it stopped testing and shelved nine years ago.

Two other farmers lodged a similar lawsuit in federal court in the western district of Washington state.

The lawsuits come after the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced May 29 that a wheat farmer in Oregon had discovered Monsanto's experimental wheat growing on his farm.

"It risks one of the U.S.'s most important export markets unnecessarily," George Kimbrell, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety.

Buyers in Asia and Europe shunned U.S. wheat purchases after the discovery of the rogue wheat in Oregon.South Korea and Japan have suspended some U.S. wheat purchases, while the European Union said it would step up testing.

The wheat was developed by Monsanto to withstand treatments of its Roundup weed killer, but the firm never commercialized the product because of widespread industry opposition. International buyers threatened to boycott U.S. wheat if the biotech wheat was introduced to the marketplace. Monsanto said in 2004 that it would end efforts to commercialize the "Roundup Ready" wheat.

This week, Monsanto said that in ending its field testing, the company instructed test participants to destroy the GMO wheat or ship it to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's seed storage facility in Colorado. Company officials have said they have no idea how their biotech wheat could be growing in Oregon.

Monsanto lawyer Kyle McCain called the lawsuits premature.

"The facts to date show the report of glyphosate-tolerant wheat is limited to one field in Oregon, and no such wheat has entered the stream of commerce," McCain said in a statement.

In the suit filed Thursday in Spokane, Washington, plaintiffs say Monsanto's failure to contain the wheat amounts to "wrongful conduct" that has potentially contaminated "the entire wheat farming and production chain," and places many wheat farmers at risk for continued harm through cross-pollination and contamination of their crops.

The petition says the claims are brought on behalf of all U.S. soft white wheat growers and harvesters from May 29.

The field testing Monsanto had been doing in many U.S. states was supposed to keep the biotech wheat from contaminating conventional wheat supplies.

The lawsuit does not seek specific monetary damages but asks for "compensatory damages" as well as punitive damages and ask that Monsanto be required to decontaminate equipment, storage and transportation facilities.

Monsanto says it followed a "government-directed, rigorous, well-documented and audited" program in its wheat field trials.

But Kimbrell said regulators do not provide proper oversight of experimental biotech crops.

"The lawsuit underscores the continuing risk to consumers and farmers from unregulated genetically engineered crops," Kimbrell said. "This is not the first time this has happened. We have a broken regulatory system."a laws

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.