E-mail this article to
yourself or a friend.
Enter address:





home

Monsanto Canada responds to Schmeiser opinion

(May 28, 2002 Ė letter to the CropChoice editor) Ė

RE: Cropchoice Guest Commentary, by Mr. Percy Schmeiser, May 24, 2002

I am writing in response to Mr. Percy Schmeiserís opinion editorial that appears on the Crop Choice web site.

Mr. Schmeiser is certainly welcome to share his personal and anecdotal opinions. It is unfortunate, however, that Mr. Schmeiser did not acknowledge that it was the Federal Court of Canada, not Monsanto Canada, that concluded Mr. Schmeiserís 1,030 acres of canola were 95 to 98 per cent Roundup Ready tolerant.

In his written judgment, Justice Andrew MacKay pointed to independent tests that showed 1,030 acres of Mr. Schmeiserís canola were 95 to 98 per cent tolerant to Roundup herbicide. At such a high level of tolerance, Justice MacKay ruled the seed could only be of commercial quality and could not have arrived in Mr. Schmeiserís field by accident. Based on all the evidence presented in a court of law, supported by witnesses who testified under oath, Justice MacKay found Mr. Schmeiserís version of events to be implausible.

Justice MacKay also determined at trial, and in his written judgment, that all samples obtained by Monsanto Canada were obtained legally and that the appropriate notifications had been made. Once again, Justice MacKay found Mr. Schmeiserís version of events to be implausible.

Monsanto Canadaís policy when discussing the outcome of the Monsanto Canada vs. Percy Schmeiser case is to refer to the written findings of Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court of Canada.

Sincerely,

Trish Jordan
Manager, Public and Industry Affairs
Monsanto Canada