NOTE: In the latest of a series of extraordinary developments in Brazil, Monsanto has been convicted by a court for false advertising claims that GM soy and the herbicide glyphosate, as used in the 'no-till with herbicides' model of cultivation, are beneficial to the environment.

This is not the first time Monsanto has been convicted by a court for false advertising over claims that its glyphosate-based herbicides are safe and environmentally friendly.

Court rulings against Monsanto's misleading advertising of glyphosate herbicides as safe for human health and the environment date back to the 1990s:
http://bit.ly/OZ9icp

In spite of these rulings, politicians in the EU and elsewhere continue to approve glyphosate-sprayed soybeans for import – and recently the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, issued a positive opinion on a Monsanto glyphosate-tolerant soy for cultivation.
http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/675

The Brazilian word used to describe Monsanto's advertising in the article below is "propaganda" and the word appears to mean much the same in Brazil as it does in English-speaking countries!

Don't miss the article's description of the script from one of Monsanto's ads, which is quite as nauseating as it is (according to the court ruling) dishonest.
–-
–-
GM soy: court convicts Monsanto for false and abusive advertising
Ultima Instancia (Brazil)
22 August 2012
Article in Portuguese:
http://bit.ly/OZp2fx
Summary of rough Google translation into English below

The 4th Panel of TRF-4 (Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region) sentenced Monsanto Brazil to pay compensation of 500,000 Brazilian real [unit of currency] for moral damages caused to consumers by 2004 advertisements ["propaganda"] that claimed that GM soy seed and the herbicide glyphosate used in its cultivation were beneficial to the conservation of the environment. It is possible for Monsanto to appeal against the decision.

The biotechnology company, which sells agricultural products and services, was also ordered to issue a counter-propaganda article explaining the negative consequences that the use of any pesticides cause to the health of humans and animals.

According to the MPF (Federal Prosecutor), who filed a civil action against Monsanto, the commercial was misleading advertising and the goal was to prepare the market for the purchase of genetically modified seed and the herbicide used on it, at a time when the approval of the Biosafety Law, enacted in 2005, was being discussed in the country.

The campaign was aired on TV, on radio, and in print. It was a dialogue between father and son, in which the former explained what the word "pride" meant, linking this sentiment with his work with transgenic seeds, with the following text:

- Dad, what is pride?

- Pride: Pride is what I feel when I look at this crop. When I see the importance of this transgenic soybeans for agriculture and the economy of Brazil. The pride is knowing that we are protecting the environment by using less tillage with herbicide. Pride is able to help the country produce more food and quality. See what pride is, son?

- I see. And that's what I feel about you, Dad.

The Federal Court of Passo Fundo had previously dismissed the case and acquitted Monsanto. The decision led the MPF to appeal to the TRF-4 court. According to prosecutors, the company opportunistically ran a publicity campaign on the controversial issues of the planting of GM seeds and the amount of herbicide used in this type of farming. "There is no scientific certainty that soybeans marketed by Monsanto use less herbicide," stressed the MPF.

Federal judge Jorge Antonio Maurique overturned the previous ruling...

The judge analyzed the studies contained in the records submitted by the MPF and concluded that the Monsanto's advertising claim that the use of GMOs demand less use of pesticides was unfounded. He also pointed out that farmers in many parts of the world report that the herbicide glyphosate has encountered resistant weeds.

According Maurique, "Propaganda should at least warn that there is no scientific consensus about the touted benefits and should expressly warn about the harmful effects of using pesticides of any kind."

The judge also noted in his ruling, when the propaganda was disseminated, GM soya was not legalized in the country but was obtained by smuggling–so the advertisement gave an incentive to criminal activity, which should have been curbed. "The defendant created improper and misleading advertising because they hyped a product, the sale of which was banned in Brazil, and did not clarify that its alleged benefits are much disputed in scientific circles, including serious studies with findings opposite to those advocated by Monsanto," he concluded.

The amount of compensation shall be set by the Fund for Recovery of Damages, established by State Law 10.913/97. The counter-propaganda article must be published with the same frequency and preferably in the same publication, place, space and time as the contested advertisement, within 30 days after publication of the decision of TRF-4, and the company must pay a daily fine of 10,000 Brazilian real in case of noncompliance.