Extract from the 2020 ‘Feeding or Fooling the World?’ debate at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK

[The first of several extracts. Thanks to Nicole Cook]

Percy Schmeiser: Mr Chairman and friends it is indeed a pleasure for me to come here today from Canada to bring a message.

I am a farmer from Saskatchewan in the western part of Canada I have been farming for 53 years I am primarily oat, pea, wheat and canola grower. I have grown canola consecutively  every year for 50 years. I have become what is known in my province as a seed saver and seed developer. My wife and I over those years developed canola seed that was resistant to various diseases and pests in our province where it gave me the ability to seed canola into the same field for year after year. Where as Monsanto say you can only seed it once in the same field every four years. So I had developed a superior canola seed.

What has happened to me?

In 1998 Monsanto launched a lawsuit against me because they had said I had infringed on their patent. They said some of my plants, my canola, had genetic altered Roundup Ready Canola in it. I never had anything to do with Monsanto, I never went to a meeting, I never even met a sales representative and they launched a lawsuit against me, and they said that I was growing it illegally and infringing on their patent. In the statement of claim they had said it didn’t matter how it got into my field, if it blew in, if it got in by birds, cross pollination or off of farm equipment, its their patent and its growing in my field I have infringed on their patent.

So this is what has happened.

I went to court in June of the year 2000, and it lasted two and half weeks because I stood up to Monsanto and said, hey look my wife and I have developed our own seed you come in and you contaminate and destroyed it. You took my choice away of being able to raise my own seed, because you wanted to bring a genetic altered canola that you knew you couldn’t control, it was out of control, and you never had intentions of controlling it.

Now what has happened?

At the end of March the judge rendered his decision, and I think it very important that all of you listen to what was in the judges decision, because it will bring up a lot of points that were presented here tonight.

First of all, the judge ruled that it doesn’t matter how it gets into a farmer’s field. Its Monsanto’s you infringe on their patent if you let it grow. They also said whether I knew it or not and I ought to have known because there was some in the ditch along my field and there could be the probability there would be some in my field.

Being a seed saver I was using my seed from year to year from my various fields and developing it. So basically to some degree it spread over all of my land.

The judge then went on to say that in Canada you have the right to grow a crop from the seed you produced the year before. It’s under the plant breeders rights that a farmer always maintains that right if a buys a registered or certified seed he can use it the following year but he can not sell it to his neighbour.

So what has happened, is that Monsanto put a gene -- they have come in through the back door. They put a gene into a seed and when they put that gene into the seed they said we have now invented the seed. When the seed become a plant, they say they have invented the plant.

Now what did the judge rule on this?

First of all, in Canada, you can’t get a patent on a plant or a seed. They came into the backdoor and put the gene into that. Now the judge ruled that it doesn’t matter, that’s his exact words, how it gets on to farmer’s field and whether it’s a plant or a seed. The farmer has a right in Canada to use that seed or plant the following year for his own purpose. Except, if its Monsanto’s seed or plant that gets on your land. That’s exactly how he ruled it.

So in other words, now Monsanto owns the plant and they own the seed because their gene has been put into the seed and it has become a plant. Now you realise the implications of this, it has alarmed farmers from all over the world. That's all it takes.

And the judge also ruled, if I have my crop of canola, you call it rape seed. If I have a plant and it gets cross-pollinated from my neighbour’s field, who has genetic altered  RR Canola, my plant becomes the property of Monsanto. So it has far reaching implications and just goes back to third world countries where you have indigenous plants. All that has to happen is a cross-pollination that plant becomes the property of Monsanto. You cannot use it unless you have a license and you pay Monsanto a technology charge. So the judge's ruling has vast, vast implications.

Monsanto says farmers don’t have to use it - they have a choice. Where’s my choice now? Because I can’t use my own seed I developed over 50 years because the judge ruled that I now know that my seed is contaminated with Roundup Ready Canola, and if I do use it I am infringing on their patent again.

So it basically, at the end of the day, it’s the full control of the seed supply. You don’t have a choice. Now in my case if I want to seed Canola this year, I know in 1999 my lawyer advise me to quit using my own seed because I now knew it was contaminated with RR Canola from Monsanto. If I were to use it 1999 then I would be infringing on their patent, because as it said there is probability that their could be some in my field.

So I went out and brought new seed in 1999, conventional seed. In the year 2000, about 5 or 6 months ago, we get tests in my field where I had the so-called pure seed and we found that 10% to 15% already of my pure seed was contaminated with RR Canola. So now I can’t even use that seed this year, in the coming year, I can’t use my own seed. What has further complicated things that farmers told me last week that seed companies that sell regular seed cannot guarantee that the seed is pure, that there is no GMO Canola in it. So they are now unable to plant that because if they do they are infringing on Monsanto patents.

So where do I go if I want to seed Canola this year?

I have to go to Monsanto to buy seed, pay $15 dollars an acre technology fee, sign a contract of non-disclosure. I have to sign a contract that Monsanto’s police can come on my land for three year afterwards, go into my grain store and on to my land with or without my permission.

This horrendous contract gets farmers to sign the rights away never to be able to use their own seed. What really makes it irritating they advertise in their brochures to ‘squeal on your neighbours here’s a toll free number if you feel that your neighbours growing RR Canola without a license rat on them’.

In return, farmers were telling me, you get a leather jacket. I tell you right now there are not many farmers wearing Monsanto leather jackets.

What’s the fall out from this?

In Western Canada - our country is only 100 years old - farmers had to work together. They came from many parts of Europe and other parts of the world. They had to work together.

Now all of a sudden a farmer gets a visit from an ex RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who works for Monsanto. Monsanto have their own police force and last year they had 35 police hired to monitor the contracts. Imagine a big multinational needs a police force to able to have a policy to sell RR Canola.

So you get this Monsanto policeman to go to a farmer or to the farmhouse and say to his wife. Look we got a tip or a rumour that your growing RR Canola and the farmers says, 'No way". Then they threaten him and say, 'We’ll get you. We know who you are. We’ve had a tip or rumour. By the time we are through with you, you won’t have a farm left."

And in one case they resort to, what they call, "spray bombing" from the air. If a farmer happens to notice, because they illegally go on your land - they trespass and take part of your crop to test to see if you are cheating or not - in the case where the farmer lives right there, they use a helicopter or a plane and they drop a spray bomb of roundup on it, and a week later they fly back and see if the crop has died. Then they know that farmer is using a different Canola. But if it hasn’t died, then they know that you’re using a RR seed. So there are all kinds of tactics.

Then there are what farmers call the extortion letters that are sent to farmers. I hope I can take one minute to read what it says.

This is to a farmer, as in my case, who had never brought Canola and [it] reads like this:

Dear Mr Solinsky

As you know, on July 22nd 1998  Monsanto with the assistance of Robinson Investigation Ltd conducted an investigation to determine whether you had improperly planted Roundup Ready Canola in 1998  without being licensed from Monsanto Canada.

A copy of our standard 1998 license agreement is attached for you to view.

(This farmer didn’t even know he was being investigated. They went on his land without his permission.)

We have completed our investigation and have very good evidence to believe that Roundup Ready Canola was grown or planted on approximately 250 acres of land, identified as your property. This is a violation of Monsanto Inc. proprietary rights.

The planting of Roundup Ready Canola without a license is a serious violation of Monsanto’s propriety rights.

(Now here is the clincher)

Prior to making any final decision as to what steps we will be taking, and in attempt to resolve this issue in a timely and economical manner, we are prepared to refrain from commencing any legal proceedings against you subject to the following:

1. You forthwith pay Monsanto the following sum 250A x $150 = $28,750

2. You acknowledge Monsanto has the right to take samples from all of your owned land, leased land and storage bins for three years from the date of this letter.

3. You agree not to disclose the specific terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement to any third party.

(This farmer gave me the original copy because he has had four heart attacks and he said, 'Let Monsanto come after me because then they will have to go to my grave.')

4. You agree that Monsanto shall at its sole discretion have the right to disclose the facts and settlement terms associated with the investigation and this Settlement Agreement.

(So in other words farmer can’t say a thing but Monsanto can say anything. We estimate there is about $50 million worth of these letters sent out. So it’s a new source of income for Monsanto.)

Acceptance of this offer will be acknowledged by forwarding to Monsanto a certified cheque for $28,750 and a duplicate signed copy of this letter by December 14th.

These are some of the tactics we now have to face.

Now why did some farmers grow RR Canola? Why did they do it?

RR Canola was licensed in Canada and gained regulatory approval in 1996, the same as soya beans in the US and corn. Farmers were told it would be more nutritious.

Well, all it does is keep it from dying when you spray Roundup on it. How can it be a bigger yielder?

They bio-pirated a variety of Canola, that they never developed and then put their gene in it. They promise less chemical use; farmers now have to use 6 to 10 times more chemicals than ever before.

Why is that?

Now we have double and triple stacking of genetic altered genes in one plant. Monsanto is not the only company that sells genetic altered Canola. You have other companies that sell genetic altered canola, but, what has happened now the genes from all these other genetic altered canola plants are double and triple stacking into one plant. So we now have, and the Royal Society of Canada has just announced, " We now have a new super weed in Western Canada"

To kill that plant you need three different chemicals. Monsanto says, 'That’s fine. We now come out with a new super chemical."

But the point of producing RR canola was to use less chemicals.

Now Canola, once the genie is out of the bottle, with canola there is no calling it back. canola has unique characteristics; it can lie dormant in the soil for ten years. We will never ever be rid of genetic altered canola. All our sales, because canola was all mixed together RR Canola, other genetic altered canola and conventional canola, mixed together - so all our sales to the European common market have been cut off. We only have three customers left. USA, Mexico and Japan, and partially China. It has had a tremendous economic impact not only individually but also on the total economy of Western Canada.

What about organic farmers, where are their choices now?

They no longer can grow canola, because they cannot guarantee it to be GM free. Our honey shipments have been cut off to Europe. A bee doesn’t now which flower or canola plant is genetically altered or not. So these are the fallouts from genetic altered canola. Cross the border into Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana, same situation with soya beans. They cannot buy any more soya beans that are not contaminated.

So what does this all mean?

I’ve lost my freedom. I have lost my rights to develop my own seed and to use my seed from year to year. What will happen to millions of farmers around the world? I don’t care what kind of seed it is, if its soya beans, corn, cotton, rape seed - and canola, in my case - they lose that freedom to be able, and to want to, use their own seed. That freedom and their expression of that freedom is taken away.

I am 70 years old and I farmed for 53 years, why do I get fired up about this? I could have probably settled with Monsanto and said, 'Hey I didn’t do nothing wrong but I don’t want to go to court.'

I would rather be fishing with my grandchildren. I would like to say to you this. I have five kids and fourteen grandkids. I don’t want to leave a legacy of a land and food with poisons. I want to leave a legacy of land and food safe so I can see my children and my great grand children eat food that is safe.

So thank you very much. I would be glad to answer questions. I get emotionally upset about this because my freedom has been taken away by a multinational which I never had nothing to do with.

Prof. Tim O’Riordan: It’s a tricky one but we have a representative of Monsanto in the room. You have a chance to make a comment.

Bernard Marantelli ( Monsanto scientific affairs): This morning on our website, monsanto.co.uk, we posted a press release this morning in relation to this, with the suspicion that Percy would probably be here this evening and there would be some attention on this particular issue. So if anyone wants to see our statement on this court case it’s posted on our website. Which is monsanto.co.uk and its been there since this morning.

Prof O’Riordan: Not everyone has access to websites.

Percy Schmeiser: I would like to answer that. In the court case Monsanto has now admitted they are not sure they even went on my land but it was only canola that was taken from the ditch. My land is along the main road that leads to the canola gathering station and crushing plant and in 1997, after they had sprayed along the ditches where you can’t cultivate, in 1997 there were some canola plants that did not die and the judge ruled that because there were some canola plants growing in the ditch. This is how he worded it I "should have known or ought to have known that there was a probability of genetic altered canola" in my field.

I don’t give a damn if it was in the ditch. I have the right to use the seed that came from my land. Why is that right taken away because some multinational somewhere says, 'We brought out a genetic altered canola, and it doesn’t matter how it gets on your land, period, its our property.'

Prof O’Riordan: Can we just have the representative from Monsanto to have a chance to speak. It’s very important. There is an atmosphere of electric interest in this. The gentleman from Monsanto, this is, as you know, a major issue. It causes a lot of trouble around the world, and certainly here tonight. This kind of pressure is brought to bear upon land owners. Is there anything you would like to say in relation to the issues that have been raised? Not specifically on this court case but in general about the accusations that pressure is being put on landowners in relation to the seeds you are producing?

Bernard Marantelli: I must admit that I don’t work in the area of the company that sells the seeds. I’m not a seed representative. I really work in the molecular area of the company in the scientific communications area. But I think I’ll reiterate some of the points early and some of the points you will find on the press release from the website. It becomes very difficult for a company if they are to spend billions of dollars to produce a particular plant that offers a benefit to the farmer. In the first year it was released in Canada in 1996 about 20,000 farmers decided to take up RR canola and they grew it on 5 million, I can’t recall if its hectares or acres, to be honest, 5 million acres. In the year 1999 there were about 30,000 farmers who either maintained the technology or took it up in the interim years.

Audience member: But you were selling all the seeds and you made the conventional less available so they had little choice. Where else were they going to get there seeds from?

Bernard Marantelli: No. Actually, this year, if you look at the breakdown of canola being grown in Canada for the first year in the year 2000, the level of genetically modified canola planted in Canada went down what I would say is a significant amount. That was based on two points, firstly one that Percy brought up earlier, that there is a concern that the farmers have reduced markets where they can sell these products at the moment. As Percy said largely Europe and other parts of the world say the consumers; the supermarkets say they would like to avoid GM products. So that has put some pressure on the farmers to not grow GM Canola. Many of them have reverted back to the conventional varieties that had been available indefinitely in North America and Canada. Additionally to”¦”¦.. (Interruption by audience)”¦”¦..if I can just finish.

Audience member: What about the soil where it has been grown? it will be contaminated with GM seed. You can’t just take that back. Going back to conventional varieties won’t solve that problem for the farmer or the consumer.

Tim O’Riordan: Can we just carry on with the answer I will bring in the comments being made but I want to try and get one straight answer out of you.

Bernard Marantelli: Sorry, I thought I was asked to comment. What direct question would you like an answer to?

Tim O’Riordan: I think the general concern is that Monsanto is putting pressure on farmers to grow this seed and once there in the seed mix they can’t get away from it. That it is a complete trap that carries on and on and on and there is no chance of any free choice to farmers after the first round of the trap is in place. It is increasingly spreading because of the spread of the seed onto land; quite innocent farmers are being brought into the trap. This is the message we are getting tonight. I’m not getting it clear from you. Why didn’t you put safeguards in for this kind of situation, where a farmer or landowner is not actually growing the seed, but has that seed incorporated in the crop and then becomes indentured to Monsanto? How can you answer that question?

Bernard Marantelli: That’s really a bit of a misunderstanding. If a seed gets into an area voluntarily via cross-pollination or contamination from the seeding company etc. It's Monsanto’s opinion that they have not prosecuted any farmers who have gained this technology unintentionally and intended to make no benefit or use from it. If I could point out a couple of the legal findings from this particular case, the judge found that over the 1030 acres, that samples were taken from in various places that between 95% and 98% plants grown over that acreage were carrying the RR gene. Now in legal terms they found that that could not happen unintentionally without some form of deliberate or encouragement to select for RR plants in that area. It was found legally, this is not me, it was found and you can read the full 68 page report, I can give it to you if you would like to read it. But it was found that in this case the judge ordered Mr Schmeiser to pay us the technology fee per acre because he felt that it wasn’t an unintentional use of the technology through cross-pollination. We haven’t ever or certainly to my knowledge we don’t prosecute any farmers that have 1 or 2 or 3% contamination on their crop if there’s some pollination etc. If you go to the legal finding, in paragraph 32, he says it was 95% to 98% pure RR Canola over a 1030 acres.

Tim O’Riordan: Can you hang on a minute? Any more questions on this particular issue. One question they’re another here and another here we are going to end this on these three questions. Percy, you will have a chance to have your say at the end.OK

Audience member: If you don’t prosecute in certain situations. If you do find your crops have accidentally contaminated a farmers crop, do you offer compensation? Therefore, do you actually admit to liability when your GM crops actually causes pollination in other crops?

Tim O’Riordan:  Do we have an answer to that on the offer of compensation? Can we do that first. That’s a specific question. You can give a specific answer.

Bernard Marantelli: Yes, the global legislation for compensation for cross-pollination is obviously going to be different in each country. I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know exactly the situation in Canada, but the situation in Europe is currently under review. As some people might know, the directive 90/220 which governs the release of genetically modified products into the environment, has just been voted on by the European union to accept alteration and ratifications to the original directive. That will, while not complete at the moment, have definitive legislation for levels and boundaries of compensation, due to contamination and impact on farmers. I must say, I’m not a legal expert, in Canada I don’t know the current situation there, but certainly we have to operate within the laws specifically of each individual country, where we get registration to sell any of our products.

Tim O’Riordan: Thank you. Two questions from over here.

Audience question: Yes I was just going to make the same comment. My concern really is, casting the legal issues aside, you’ve got GM crops contaminating other seeds and if rape or canola has a residual life span 10 years in the soil, just think how vast the effects of that are going to be over future decades. Is Monsanto addressing that issue?

Bernard Marantelli: Well, I guess each product undergoes an environmental assessment before it’s licensed by any country for environmental release. There are products like Soya that don’t have cross-pollination issues - they're a self[pollinat]ing plant. Canola is a product that has issues where its pollen is dispersed by the wind. It cross-pollinates with other varieties of canola, and it also cross-pollinates with some weedy relatives, some of the sea beets etc. It’s a question you have to look at and assess, product by product, whether the risk of that cross-pollination is acceptable or not. Certainly there would be people in the industry, in society, who think that the risk with canola didn’t justify licensing this product at the beginning. Whereas, with soya there wouldn’t be anyone who would say that on a cross-pollination issue. I think it is a very serious question, product by product we need to look and say what are the issues, with out-crossing, for this product, and should it ever be licensed to be grown commercially - if indeed we don’t know what will be the consequences of out-crossing or even know the level of out-crossing that exists.

Tim O’Riordan: Two more questions and I‘m going to call the evening to a close and give Percy a chance to finish off before I sum up.

Audience member. It’s the same issue again. You can’t produce a product which you can’t control, that’s going to get into other peoples land, its going to pollute their crops, and then say, what’s more we going to charge you for the privilege. You can’t do that. It’s a basic violation of peoples rights and how are you going to answer that?

Tim O’Riordan: Can we have the other question as well please.

Audience member: It’s not really a question. It’s more of a comment really. I wanted to pick up on the last issue that was raised by the gentleman from Monsanto. The fact that these crops have been through a risk assessment. Which is true, they have been through a risk assessment; they have assessed that this gene being present in this canola variety is safe for the environment. The question is what happens when you get double or even triple gene stacking in a single Canola plant. Has that been through a risk assessment? It hasn’t and it’s a very serious regulatory issue that I don’t think has been dealt with at all.

Tim O’Riordan: I must give one word to a Norfolk farmer who I recognize in the foreground if you don’t mind. It’s important to have a real Norfolk farmer as well as a real Canadian farmer and real Indian farmers.

Coen Van Beuningen  (Organic Farmer, Norfolk):  I wanted to ask Mr Schmeiser regarding the organization he's a member of. We have here in the UK, the National Farmers Union, of which I am a member. Surely there are many farmers in Canada in the same situation. Are you supported by the organization you’re a member of, in legal terms, or do you have to fight your own individual fight?

Tim O’Riordan: Percy can you answer the various points that were made in relation to that?

Percy Schmeiser: The first thing is I heard this rumour coming out of Europe that I had a 1030 acres seeded and it was 90%. The judge in his decision never ruled what the contamination was. That was Monsanto’s statement and that came from the ditch - 90%. I don’t know why they didn’t have 100% because it was sprayed with Roundup in the ditch.

Now Monsanto at the court also admitted, in fact, the land descriptions they gave to the court was not even my land. It was 125 miles away. They tried to give to the court that it was my land that had this canola on. It wasn’t even on my land.

But it was in some plants that were in the ditch.

So now the question is: they say 1030 acres. Now I was using my own seed? Now I brought an independent scientist from the university to check my own fields because I wanted to know.

Monsanto did all their own in house testing. They never went to a third party and believe me after I’ve seen what has happened I would not trust them to the end of this room here.

Anyway, the testing showed in some of my fields it was zero. There was no contamination. Some fields it was 8% and one field it was higher where we first noticed it in. But don’t I have the right to use my own seed?

But the  judge never ruled what the contamination level was that only comes from Monsanto. Now at the court Monsanto was asked, 'Why didn’t you use any third party testing? why just Monsanto’s in house testing - where they can fudge any numbers they want? You know what Monsanto’s biotechnology manager answered? He said to the judge, 'We never thought that anyone would question the integrity of Monsanto.'

They speak about 30,000 farmers - I think the gentleman said. That doesn’t say 30,000 farmers used it every year. Sometimes when farmers used it the first year and they see the repulsive contracts or they read the fine print - that was it.

Monsanto always said they had to sue me. They admitted it was because I was a test case. I was a person they never ever had anything to do with. Monsanto and they admitted, that it didn’t matter how it got on my land. They admitted that I never obtained the seed illegally and they admitted that it was too much for cross-pollination, so it had to be a direct seed movement.

What they did, they were supposed to supply to the court, and I can talk about this now, back in pre-trial who all my neighbours were who grew GM Canola. They supplied that list but the omitted one farmer who was my neighbour that grew it 1996 right next to my farm with not even a fence line in between. There was a bad whirlwind and windstorm and a good portion of his crop came into that field. They never admitted it until the trial and they were saying the closest field was 6 to 8 miles away and cross-pollination could not have occurred. So there is a lot more to what I am saying. Now 30’000 farmers, you had to be invited to a Monsanto meeting to get a license and you are always given the positive things you were never told you could be a liability issue that you could be sued by your neighbour they were never told that.

But a very interesting point came up via the judge in his decision. Last year there were hundreds of farmers who had GM canola on their land that never even grew canola. They asked Monsanto’s reps to come out and they did, in many cases they didn’t even bother to come out. And they said yes it is RR Canola but sorry we own the gene you own the plant and it’s up to you to get rid of it.

But now what the judge has ruled is that the seed and the plant is Monsanto’s.  So now that opens to class action lawsuits and to me now to go after Monsanto and pursue a liability issue. You destroyed my property because you have a patent on something doesn’t give you the right to come in and destroy what I developed over 50 years.

There is a further item here I had a seed that was unique to my region that my wife and I developed and farmers tell me in the area, that Monsanto was bragging that that was not the real reason they went on my field. They went on my field to get samples of my Canola that they could use my Canola in the further of their development. That’s what farmers are telling me so that’s what I lost. Where are my property rights?

So when they say they want a level playing field for 30’000 farmers where’s my level playing field. Where’s the level playing field for those farmers where ‘s the level playing field of $50’000 fine, where’s the level playing field when they take a farmers rights away so that he can’t use his seed the following year. Boy, that’s not a level playing field to me 30’000 figure is just something they draw out of the air I garnets you this year that with Canola prices now since genetic altered Canola come out it has dropped in half we have lost our sales to many countries of the world and now the big fear is genetic altered wheat. But now there is a mass uprising in North America against wheat and I don’t think Monsanto no matter how much they might be in bed with the department of agriculture it ain’t gonna happen. The Canadian farmers national union six weeks ago came out with a very strong worded statement in regards to the property rights of farmers and also their opposition to any type of genetic altered seeds or plants.  It now has shown, that it hasn’t been beneficial to farmers. It has ruined the economics basically what has happened it has ruined the Canola industry of Western Canada and it has ruined the Soya bean industry of the United States. It has not been a benefit.

Prof O’Riordan I will take two more quick questions.

Audience member: Is there a legal appeal system in America because if there is a chance for you to state your case again to a new court I think you would have quite a few more character witnesses that you have gathered tonight.

Percy Schmeiser: I have 30 days to appeal the decision. My case has cost me personally, my wife and I, basically our retirement funds. We have spent a little over $200,000 in fighting this and its going to cost approximately $50,000 for the appeal. I went on the Internet and asked organisations around the world and they said 'Its no longer a Percy Schmeiser fight. It’s a fight for farmers of the world. Because they will lose the ability to use their own seed. So I am getting tremendous support at this stage now, that I will be going ahead with the appeal plus a counter lawsuit in a provincial court. I am going after them now for putting into the environment a substance that they knew they couldn’t control and the liability issue of destroying my property.

Audience member: First is just an observation, that I think we need laws about liability on genetic pollution. Secondly, I would like to know if I can pledge £50 to help you fight you cause. I would like to know the best way to do that and I hope there are other people here who will do the same. And I think we are engaged in a very important fight. We should not underestimate the forces that are ranged against us.

Percy Schmeiser: I have set up a trust account at the Canadian Imperial bank called Fight Genetic Altered Food. Any foreign currency can be sent. It will be strictly going to my appeal fund. Hopefully, I can reach that $50,000 before the end of next week so I can proceed. I have a website also; it's www.percyschmeiser.com.

Like I said before I would rather be fishing with my grand kids than fighting this but by golly somebody somewhere sometime has to take a stand and my wife and I have decided to do that.