UK: Legal support for Monsanto
01 September 1998
Bio-technology giant Monsanto has been granted a sweeping injunction against five women campaigning against genetically modified foods, and their press officer. The action followed a protest in July in which a symbolic number of Monsanto's modified plants were uprooted at a test site in Oxfordshire. The High Court injunction orders the six not to trespass on Monsanto's land or premises or interfere with their plants or crops in any way; or conspire with others to do so. Furthermore, the six will be liable for any damage caused by other "members" of the "GenetiX Snowball" campaign. However, the campaign has no membership as such - the idea being that participants incite others to fulfil their "non-violent civil responsibility" and engage in the protest (thus the snowball gathers momentum). In effect, the injunction means that the six could be liable for damage done to Monsanto's sites without them even knowing the people involved.
As the world's second largest producer of agricultural chemicals, a history of using aggressive litigation against their critics comes as little surprise. Katherine Tulip (one of the GenetiX five) called the injunction a "classic SLAPP" - a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
The all too regular acquiescence of the British legal system to multinational companies next led the printers of The Ecologist magazine, Penwell's of Liskeard, to destroy the entire print run of a special edition entitled "The Monsanto Files". According to co-editor Zac Goldsmith, Penwell's have printed the often outspoken magazine for 29 years and had never "expressed the slightest qualms about what we were doing". Monsanto denied that they had threatened them with the UK's draconian libel law: "It's news to me. We had nothing to do with it" said UK spokesman Daniel Verakis.
A quick glance at the edition in question makes Monsanto's claim rather difficult to believe; the articles in The Ecologist amount to a fairly comprehensive critique of a company Greenpeace has described as a "corporation of poisons, genes and swindle". (In 1996, these words saw Monsanto bring a legal action against a German man who posted the quote among of details of a Greenpeace demonstration on a small electronic mailing list. Before their claims were thrown out by the court, Monsanto had obtained a preliminary ruling under which written or verbal repetition of the sentence the by the defendant would carry a 500,000 DM fine (£330,000) or six months in prison).
The Monsanto Files allege a catalogue of pollution, contamination and attempts by Monsanto to dispute liability. The issue describes some of the poisons they have developed and produced (for example the "defoliate" Agent Orange). It reveals the "cosy relations" that the company enjoys with politicians and regulators (such as the UK Environment Agency and the US Food & Drug Administration) and Monsanto's use of the media. It contains allegations of damaging information and cites allegations by Canadian Government Officials of an attempted $2 million bribe to overturn a ban a milk hormone - Monsanto say the offer of "research funds" was misunderstood. It also contains discussion of resistance to biotechnology.
As for being libellous, the editors suggest that Monsanto might in fact welcome these observations, for as they have said: "Food biotechnology is a matter of opinions. Monsanto believes you should hear them all". Happily, a printer has now been found and The Monsanto Files is available from Central Books, 99 Wallis Road, London E9 5LN (?3.50).
SchNEWS, 18.9.98 & 2.10.98; The Ecologist, vol 28 no 5, (September/October) 1998.