Farmers To Pay Insurance For Monsanto GE Contamination


Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. It is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.

The Monsanto business model has been to invest heavily in research and develop and recoup the expenses through the use and enforcement of biological patents. Monsanto’s use of this model in agriculture is in direct conflict with customary practices of farmers to save, reuse, share and develop plant varieties. Its seed patenting model has been criticized as a threat to biodiversity. Monsanto’s role in these changes in agriculture (which include its litigation and its seed commercialization practices), its lobbying of government agencies, and its history as a chemical company, have made Monsanto controversial – to say the least…

Monsanto is clearly taking over the world of agriculture food production, and putting the traditional farmer out of business, in my opinion.

As further evidence of this giant’s domination in the industry and government, the following is excerpted from a recent article (with emphasis added) which describes Monsanto’s latest efforts (with the assistance of the U.S. Dept of Agriculture) to put further financial burden on the farmer to buy insurance protection (in case any Monsanto ‘contamination’ happens to blow into their fields on nature’s breezes).


The United State Department of Agriculture has finalized a report to address concerns from farmers who fear they’ll be next on an ever-expanding list of defendants sued by biotech giants Monsanto, but those worries are not about to end.

The Monsanto Company dominates more than just grow fields across the US, as evident in their stellar track record of taking small-time farmers to court and winning cases, an occurrence that happens roughly a dozen times a year. Time and time again, Monsanto’s patented, lab-made genetically engineered seeds are sold to one farmer, only for Mother Nature to move the crop onto neighboring fields with the help of a bit of wind. Just as often, of course, Monsanto’s team of high-paid litigators take the little guys to court, only to triumph thanks to a legal counsel that collects around $10 million a year just to take other farmers to court.

With Monsanto-led lawsuits all too common, the USDA was tasked with putting together a panel — the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, or AC21 — to analyze “What types of compensation mechanisms would be appropriate to address economic losses by farmers in which the value of their crops is reduced by unintended presence of genetically engineered material(s)”

The AC21 panel released their findings in a report entitled ‘Enhancing Coexistence’ that was sent to the secretary of agriculture. In it, however, they have little to say to the farmers who are likely to be brought before a judge while Monsanto and other biotech kings come out on top.

According to the AC21 group, the best maneuver for any Monsanto foe to take right now is to simply buy insurance, suggesting that the top guns will be given the go-ahead to continue with their contested habit of near endless litigation, a practice that has a tendency to leave the little guys bankrupt and out of business — only to be bought up by the billion-dollar Monsanto corporation after their bills can’t be paid.

“In discussions on potential compensation mechanisms,” the panel writes, “the AC21 considered three types of potential mechanisms: (1) a compensation fund, which might be funded by technology providers, by farmers, or by the entire food and feed production chain; (2) a crop insurance-type mechanism, which would likely involve both public financing and farmer choice to purchase the insurance; and (3) a risk retention group, which would essentially be a self-insurance tool that could be purchased by those farmers at risk of economic losses (analogous to extant insurance mechanisms for industries like the trucking industry, private campgrounds, etc.).”

“The AC21 discussed potential impacts on trade relations upon adoption of any of the three potential compensation mechanisms. The entire gamut of potential views was expressed: some members felt that establishing a compensation mechanism would send a signal to purchasers of US organic and non-GE products that there are problems in how the US produces those products, some expressed the opinion that effects would be neutral, and some felt that it would be reassuring to our trading partners in GE-sensitive markets that steps are being taken to ensure containment. All members felt, however, that if a compensation mechanism were to be instituted, that attention needed to be given to potential impacts on trade.”

In their recommendations, the panel suggests, “If the Secretary, in considering the loss data, determines that the situation warrants development of a compensation mechanism to help address such losses, the Secretary should implement such a mechanism based on a crop insurance model.”

Additionally, no real recommendations seem to be presented to farmers regularly targeted by biotech companies in court other than to invest in some solid insurance. In a statement issued from The National Organic Coalition (NOC), the group condemns the USDA and its AC21 panel for allegedly putting little work into alleviating a big problem destroying America’s agriculturists.

“Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination,” the group writes. “NOC strongly asserts that this proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination, while making the victim of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.
“This is a completely wrong approach to tackling the GE contamination problem,” says Liana Hoodes, NOC’s executive director. “At the bare minimum, USDA must stop approving additional GE crops, and prevent GE contamination by mandating pollution prevention measures, as well as make transgenic polluters, including GE technology owners, pay for their contamination.”

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety and a NOC member, adds that the AC21’s findings are an “ill-conceived solution of penalizing the victim is fundamentally unjust and fails to address the root cause of the problem – transgenic contamination.”

“The AC21 report takes responsibility for GE contamination prevention out of the hands of USDA and the biotech industry where it belongs and puts it squarely on the backs of organic and non-GE farmers,” Kimbrell says.

According to the lone AC21 panel member that dissented from the rest, the report as a whole does little to alleviate anything for the time being.

“Any farmer/seed grower contaminated will not want to disclose the contamination because they are illegally in possession of a patented material and could be subject to legal action for theft of intellectual property. The committee refused to ever recognize this fact,” writes Isaura Andaluz.

Original article:


Monsanto clearly does not want you to grow your own food, at least without the use of their patented genetically modified products. It is never a good thing when a single company dominates a market so dominantly. Their practices are ruining the tradition of farming and self-sufficiency. The fact that most foods are genetically modified is another story altogether, with the unknowns of long term effects. It all adds up to a very bad situation where the majority of people become dependent upon a sole source or system… particularly one that involves our food and our very survival.


Appreciate topics of survival, emergency preparedness – or planning for disaster?
Read our current articles on Modern Survival Blog
twitter: MSurvivalBlog

Similar Posts


  1. Greetings, That, is one intense read! As to the current and the new Propriatorey patent aspects of the aluminum resistant seed line that Monsanto has been developing, the litigation issues go even further in their potentialities. One, having ingested such “GM” foods; those currently being disseminated, and the future “Terminator Line”; as foundation-ally, we are what we eat, we will have been genetically altered. The 101 is that in the least we would carry genetic materials that are by law the “property” of Monsanto. With Monsanto patents and the rewriting of the law,( Read between the lines-the thousands of points and issues that I have left out…) having been found to have Monsanto Propriatorey patented ingredients, there is no individual fall back. The individual having an apportionment of Monsanto genes, an owned product, could loose in ownership litigation that part of you that is “Theirs”! Humans may show on a graph, as such and such, plus, “point” 1 to .9999… but, there is No “point” of a Human. If you have on, or, in your person what they claim ownership of, with the backing of, well, “The System”; They Own You! Food for Thought… Survive-All… o…

  2. Monsanto is one insidious parasite who’s not to be trusted as otter points out above. Obscene profit margins over 50%, they bring in more than $4B a quarter, rising approximately 15% per quarter. Coming from a farming family, I have a special, dark place in my heart for this morbid, twisted corporation.

  3. This is a topic that scares the sh!t outta me! I’ve done a lot of research and reading on it, and have spoken with farmers in my area about it. I live in the biggest agricultural county in California, so this has a big impact on me and mine.

    What it all boils down to is this: If you control the food, you control the people. This is Monsanto’s goal. Presently, they have us by the short hairs, and it will take a lot of work to extricate ourselves without ripping those hairs out by the root.

    I had a lot of hope that the GE Labeling law would pass this year, but it looks like there is a lot more work to be done.

    This is THE reason that we, as preppers, MUST obtain, grow, and save open-pollinated (heirloom) vegetable seed in plentiful supply and diversity. This is extremely important, as we lose more and more variety of plants every year. If we are to successfully take our food supply back from Monsanto, we will need seed to replace it with, because if all GE crops were to disappear there would be a huge food shortage.

    1. Not only that, but, the follow-on seeds of the plants of genetically modified seeds will not grow with any vigor to produce food. I’ve tried it with a few different varieties (dried out and saved the seeds for the following year) and the plants were greatly stunted and barely grew. Of course this is part of the plan… to have to buy more GM seeds the next year.

      Heirloom seeds will produce plants that can then be used for seed the following year… and so on… forever. Just like nature intended.

  4. Wow,
    About 10 years ago my mother in law taught me how to grow a garden.
    She’s old school Tennessee. She would only buy seeds that would produce
    Plant seeds she could use the next year. I didn’t understand at that time
    But over the years I began to see.

    Now if I owened a gun- I would have been in a tree yesterday with my son,
    I watched 4 does, 1 bobcat, and shot a coyote dead in his tracks.
    My husband would have been on another field with our twins and he
    Would have killed 2 wild pigs.
    No meat from the grocery store needed. If that’s what we were doing.

  5. How backwards. Farmers should be suing Monsanto for contaminating their crops with foreign seed strains. I believe that if Monsanto lets Mother Nature distribute their “seed” on the wind, then they have allowed their property to become part of the public domain and have given up all their proprietary rights. This seems so morally simple (which ideally should make it legally simple)that a farmer shouldn’t even need a lawyer to win this type of case in court. It just shows how screwed our legal system is, the deepest pockets win, right or wrong.

Leave a Reply

>>USE OPEN FORUM for Off-Topic conversation

Name* use an alias