1. Monsanto shifts all liability to farmers
2. Farmers Signing Technology Use Agreements

NOTE: An article for MorphCity.com (item 1) analysing Monsanto's Technology Agreement, which farmers growing GM crops have to sign, has been doing the rounds on the internet. The article says that the contract places all liability for contamination from Monsanto's GM genes on the farmer... for ever.

If the farmer sells his land, the new purchaser must also sign a Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement.

Monsanto's reply to this article (item 2), published on its blog by a woman only identified as "Janice", does not reassure. It is remarkable for its lack of substance, and its author doesn't make clear her position in the company or what authority lies behind her views. Monsanto's reply has two threads:
**"Janice" suggests that people are silly to worry, that we all have to sign liability contracts when buying a house, but adds that everyone should read any contract they sign
**an unnamed farmer also thinks we are silly to worry, but sticks his neck out enough to add his view of what the contract means: "The way I read it, it says if you buy or rent a farm that has their [Monsanto's] traited crops planted (i.e., current crop year in the middle of the season) on it you have to sign the agreement to spray them and harvest them."

The most substantial part of "Janice"'s argument is, "Claims that farmers don't understand the agreements or that they require a buyer of farm land to purchase seed with Monsanto technology in perpetuity are baseless."

But the MorphCity article, as we read it, doesn't say that new buyers of land that's grown GM crops have to purchase Monsanto seed. It says that the liability for damages from growing GM crops rests with the new buyer. These appear to be different things and it isn't clear why "Janice" doesn't understand that.

Most importantly, neither "Janice" nor farmer has anything to say about what happens if Monsanto's GM trait persists on the land in question without anyone deliberately planting GM crops. This has happened with GM crops and will probably happen all the more with GM alfalfa, which is a perennial crop. Could this be the case of Percy Schmeiser's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren versus Monsanto?
---
---
1. Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers
By Cassandra Anderson
MorphCity.com
February 21, 2011
http://www.morphcity.com/home/94-monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers

Farmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them with herbicide and then there is very little maintenance until harvest.  Farmers who plant Monsanto's GM crops probably don't realize what they bargain for when they sign the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract.  One farmer reportedly 'went crazy' when he discovered the scope of the contract because it transfers ALL liability to the farmer or grower.

Here is the paragraph that defines Monsanto's limit of liability that shifts it to the farmer:

"GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES."

G. Edward Griffin, author of 'The Creature From Jekyll Island', and numerous other books and documentary films, and Anthony Patchett, retired assistant Head Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County Environmental Crimes/ OSHA Division explain the consequences of the Monsanto contract in the video below. [http://www.morphcity.com/home/94-monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers]

Monsanto's Technology Stewardship Agreement shifts responsibility to growers for any and all losses, injury or damages resulting from the use of Monsanto seeds. There is no expiration date on the contract. The grower may terminate the contract, but: "Grower's responsibilities and the other terms herein shall survive..."

This includes contamination of other farms. Growers are purchasing seed for Spring planting right now. Alfalfa, America's 4th largest crop, is a particular problem because it is a perennial plant and the seeds may lie dormant in the ground for 10-20 years, and WILL contaminate non-GM plants.  Contaminated alfalfa cannot be recalled from the environment.  The liability burden can follow the grower for decades.  Farmers must be made aware of the danger of being sued before they plant GM crops (especially alfalfa because it is used for cattle feed and will affect dairy farmers).

Currently, Australian organic farmer Steve Marsh, who lost his organic certification due to contamination, is suing his GM crop-growing neighbor for the GM contamination.

Contamination of processing equipment is another risk.

There is evidence from India that GM crops are linked to livestock deaths. The Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract holds growers responsible for injuries, so this is another potential consequence for farmers planting Monsanto GM crops to consider.

The Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement has another clause that farmers will find disturbing: it appears that the growers agree that in order to sell their farm, the new purchaser must also sign a Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement.  According to a top real estate broker, the contract places a covenant, condition or restriction (CCR) on the farmer's land:

"GROWER AGREES: To accept and continue the obligations of this Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement on any new land purchased or leased by Grower that has Seed planted on it by a previous owner or possessor of the land; and to notify in writing purchasers or lessees of land owned by Grower that has Seed planted on it that the Monsanto Technology is subject to this Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement and they must have or obtain their own Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement."

Environmental attorney Anthony Patchett further elaborated on Monsanto's contract in a letter that states "Monsanto's agreement shifts all liability to the growers, including contamination issues or any potential future liability. All the grower receives is the price of the seed." He further stated that this contract appears to be "Unconscionable". Click here to view the letter.

For more information about the perils of contamination, please go to MorphCity.com to read the interview with alfalfa seed grower Phil Geertson who opposed Monsanto in the GM case heard in the Supreme Court last summer. Geertson said that Monsanto's GM seeds are more expensive and after a few years, weeds can become tolerant to Roundup Ready and other glyphosate herbicides so farmers must return to conventional farming practices anyway. Therefore, there is no benefit to planting GM crops.

You can alert farmers to the hazard of growing GM crops and how growers can be hurt by Monsanto's contract, if you would like to take action in opposing GM crops.  Please share this article and video.
---
---
2. Farmers Signing Technology Use Agreements
Post at Beyond the rows (Monsanto blog)
Author: Janice
March 3, 2011
http://bit.ly/h2WR9i

Over the last few days I've seen people tweeting about Monsanto's Technology / Stewardship Agreement (MTSA). Tweets send you to a video of two people discussing the agreement and now there is a commentary on Huffington Post. There seems to be a lot of shock that a liability statement is included in the document, and the overreactions about the extent of the liability borne by Monsanto and the farmers is amazing to me. But then again, I first heard about the agreements in 1995 when they were introduced and I read them shortly after. I've had dozens of discussions with farmers about them.

The MTSA agreement is one that farmers know well. They've had business advisors or lawyers review these just as they have other legal documents. As a matter of fact, when the "news" of a liability statement was broken on a farmer bulletin board service, it met quickly with one farmer dismissing it and saying it was silly.

Another farmer provided his perspective on the video. "I don't even believe I'm giving this my time? Seriously? I assume you read what you signed and already knew this, or at least had your lawyer read it”¦ The way I read it, it says if you buy or rent a farm that has their traited crops planted (i.e., current crop year in the middle of the season) on it you have to sign the agreement to spray them and harvest them."

With the traffic picking up from the websites, I'd like to make a few things clear:

*The MTSA provides a farmer a limited license to use Monsanto's technology in seed that he or she may choose to purchase. The document provides the license to use the technology and consequently covers several topics commonly found in similar agreements.

*Subjects covered in the agreement include information on the products covered by the agreement, required adherence to stewardship regulations, and information on the patents involved.

*The agreement contains liability provisions commonly found in technology agreements as well as other types of contracts. (Thanks to the farmer above, I'm looking more closely at mortgage papers on my desk. The liability clauses are there and I can only imagine what I'll have to sign when I buy my next house.)

*The introduction of biotech in the mid-1990s led to new types of agreements now commonplace and well understood by farmers. Claims that farmers don't understand the agreements or that they require a buyer of farm land to purchase seed with Monsanto technology in perpetuity are baseless.

*We encourage all farmers to read and understand the MTSA. Farmers choose to sign it have the right to receive the value Monsanto's technologies offer them.

Liability clauses are standard in all walks of life now. There's always one I have to agree to when I have to upgrade iTunes, my niece's school had one about peanuts, and, heck, even a cup of coffee comes with a warning and limit of liability now. Whether the discussion going on now is silly or unconscionable, I'll leave to the farmers to decide.