Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/51990219/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 10:51:23
Document Index: 729124965

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 101', '§ 101', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1']

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinOSGATA-v-Monsanto-ComplaintUploaded by Watershed Post0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentINTRODUCTION 1. Society stands on the precipice of forever being bound to transgenic agriculture and transgenic food.1 Coexistence between transgenic seed and organic seed is impossible because transgenic seed contaminates and eventually overcomes organic seed. History has already shown this, as soon after transgenic seed for canola was introduced, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of transgenic seed contamination. Organic corn, soybean, cotton, sugar beet and alfalfa now face the same fate, as transgenic seed has been released for each of those crops, too. And transgenic seed is being developed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake. 2. Plaintiffs in this matter represent farmers and seed businesses who do not want to use or sell transgenic seed. Plaintiffs are largely organic farmers and organic seed businesses, but also include non­organic farmers who nonetheless wish to farm without transgenic seed. Plaintiffs are increasingly being threatened by transgenic seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. This causes Plaintiffs to fear that, if they do indeed become contaminated by transgenic seed, which may very well be inevitable given the proliferation of transgenic seed today, they could quite perversely also be accused of patent infringement by the company responsible for the transgenic seed that contaminates them. Thus, Plaintiffs bring this action to protect themselves from ever being accused of infringing patents on transgenic seed. 3. Monsanto is a chemical company that was previously responsible for introducing to the world Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins. Monsanto is now the world's leading 1 Transgenic means to introduce the genetic code of one species into another. Transgenic plants are sometimes referred to as “genetically modified (GM)” or “genetically engineered (GE),” however those terms are imprecise and, therefore, not used herein. 2
proponent of transgenic seed and holds many patents relating thereto that it has aggressively asserted against literally hundreds of farmers, including those farmers who became contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed through no fault of their own. Public awareness of Monsanto's patent assertion activities is high and it contributes mightily to Plaintiffs' fears that they, too, could most assuredly be accused of patent infringement in the near future if and when they become contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed. 4. Through this action, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that, should they ever be contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed, they need not fear being sued for patent infringement. As set forth below, there are several legal bases for this declaration, the principal one of which is that patents on transgenic seed fail to satisfy the requirement of both the Constitution and the Patent Act that only technology with a beneficial societal use may be patented. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”) (emphasis added); 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor”) (emphasis added). As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be “injurious to the well­being, good policy, or sound morals of society,” and “a new invention to poison people ... is not a patentable invention.” Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas. 1018 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817). Because transgenic seed, and in particular Monsanto's transgenic seed, is “injurious to the well­being, good policy, or sound morals of society” and threatens to “poison people,” Monsanto's transgenic seed patents are all invalid. 5. Monsanto's patents are additionally invalid for other failures to meet the 3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 4
Plaintiff Agriculture Membership Organizations 12. Plaintiff ORGANIC SEED GROWERS AND TRADE ASSOCIATION is a not­ for­profit agricultural organization that develops, protects and promotes the organic seed trade and its growers, and assures that the organic community has access to excellent quality organic seed, free of contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture. See http://www.osgata.org/. Organic farmers require quality organic seed in order to maximize the overall integrity and success of their organic system. Organic seed systems face risks from transgenic contamination. The growth and development of a vibrant organic seed trade will result in seed systems suited to the ecological, economic, local, and sustainable challenges and needs of organic farming. OSGATA policy states that transgenic contamination of organic seed constitutes irreparable harm to the organic seed industry and that it undermines the integrity of organic seed and that any detectable level is unacceptable. OSGATA's membership is comprised of organic farmers who produce seed crops, organic seed breeders, organic seed companies, and affiliate organizations. OSGATA brings this action on behalf of its forty members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 13. Plaintiff ORGANIC CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. is one of the world's oldest, and most trusted leaders in the organic certification industry. See http://www.ocia.org/. OCIA International is a not­for­profit agricultural organization dedicated to providing the highest quality organic certification services and access to global organic markets. As producers of certified organic crops, OCIA 6
International is committed to environmentally sound stewardship. OCIA International brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 14. Plaintiff OCIA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION INC. is a not­for­profit agricultural organization that supports farmer driven research, both on­farm and at research institutions, including exploratory and demonstration projects. See http://www.ocia.org/RE/. OCIA R&E facilitates connections between farmers, researchers, consumers and decision­ makers, and educates organic producers and local and global communities regarding organic farming and foods. OCIA R&E brings this action on behalf of its approximately 900 members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 15. Plaintiff THE CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE is a not­for­profit public interest organization that engages in research and educational activities supporting the ecological principles and economic wisdom underlying sustainable and organic agriculture. See http://www.cornucopia.org/. Through research and investigations on agricultural issues, The Cornucopia Institute provides needed information to family farmers, consumers and the media. The Cornucopia Institute brings this action on behalf of its 4000+ members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 16. Plaintiff DEMETER ASSOCIATION, INC. is the non­profit American chapter of Demeter International, the world’s only certifier of Biodynamic® farms and products. See 7
http://www.demeter­usa.org/. The Demeter Association currently works with 275 members. The Demeter® Farm Standard utilizes the National Organic Program as a base and from there envisions the farm as a self­contained and self­sustaining ecosystem. It provides a base definition for Biodynamic products in the USA marketplace. Seed, as well as other farm inputs, are encouraged to be generated from within the farming system rather than being imported from the outside, thus many Biodynamic farmers save their own seed. The entire farm, versus a particular crop, must be certified, and farms are inspected annually. In order for a processed product to bear the Demeter logo it must be made with certified Biodynamic ingredients and meet strict processing standards to ensure the purest possible product. The Demeter Association brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 17. Plaintiff NAVDANYA INTERNATIONAL, founded by physicist and internationally renowned activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, was born out of a vision of peace and non­ violence. See http://www.navdanya.org/. Navdanya’s aim is to defend and protect nature and the rights of people to access to food and water and dignified jobs and livelihoods. Promoting local and ecological food models is critical to alleviating poverty, hunger, and safeguarding natural resources, including water, especially in this time of climate change chaos. Articulating rarely heard views from the global South, Navdanya believes that cultural and biological diversity is essential for ensuring creative, peaceful societies throughout the planet. Navdanya has members throughout the world and brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by 8
Defendants for patent infringement. 18. Plaintiff MAINE ORGANIC FARMERS AND GARDENERS ASSOCIATION is a not­for­profit agricultural organization. See http://www.mofga.org/. Formed in 1971, MOFGA is the oldest and largest state organic organization in the country with over 6,300 members. MOFGA's mission is to help farmers and gardeners grow organic food, fiber and other crops, protect the environment, recycle natural resources, increase local food production, support rural communities, and illuminate for consumers the connection between healthful food and environmentally sound farming practices. The organization includes hundreds of certified organic farmers as members, as well as farmers growing non­transgenic crops. MOFGA brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 19. Plaintiff NORTHEAST ORGANIC FARMING ASSOCIATION/MASSACHUSETTS CHAPTER, INC. is a not­for­profit membership organization that includes farmers, gardeners, landscapers and consumers working to educate members and the general public about the benefits of local organic systems based on complete cycles, natural materials, and minimal waste for the health of individual beings, communities and the living planet. See http://www.nofamass.org/. NOFA/Mass encourages methods of farming and gardening that can continue for generations because they show respect for the soil, water, and air which support us all. NOFA/Mass promotes political and economic changes necessary to build a sustainable local agriculture that benefits rural, suburban and urban Massachusetts. NOFA/Mass is concerned about the dangers posed by pesticides, herbicides and chemical 9
21. Plaintiff RURAL VERMONT is a not­for­profit membership organization that envisions a Vermont local food system which is self­reliant and based on reverence for the earth. Rural Vermont's members agree that sustainable agriculture should be the foundation of our communities and that all people have the right to healthy, locally produced food. For the past twenty years, Rural Vermont has been at the forefront of fighting corporate control of agriculture, representing family farmers and amplifying their voices in the struggle to achieve food sovereignty. Rural Vermont brings this action on behalf of its approximately 800 members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 22. Plaintiff OHIO ECOLOGICAL FOOD & FARM ASSOCIATION was formed in 1979 and is a membership­based, grassroots organization, dedicated to promoting and supporting sustainable, ecological, and healthful food systems. See http://www.oeffa.org/. OEFFA's membership includes over 2,800 farmers, consumers, gardeners, chefs, teachers, researchers, retailers, and students. Together, OEFFA's members work to recreate a regionally­scaled farming, processing, and distribution system that moves food from farm to local fork using the highest standards of environmental stewardship. OEFFA brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 23. Plaintiff SOUTHEAST IOWA ORGANIC ASSOCIATION is Iowa Chapter 3 of OCIA International and is comprised of organic farmers in Southeast Iowa. SEIOA brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' 11
transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 24. Plaintiff NORTHERN PLAINS SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY is a nonprofit membership organization that is committed to the development of a more sustainable society through the promotion of ecologically sound, socially just, and economically viable food systems. See http://www.npsas.org/. NPSAS, a 32­year­old grassroots educational organization, has worked to advocate land stewardship and organic farming, bring together farmers for education and advancement of sustainable practices, help Northern Plains farmers convert their farms to organic systems, increase the region's land grant research in organic and sustainable agriculture, protect the integrity of the organic label, promote healthy trade relationships in the organic industry, and develop local food systems. NPSAS's constituency is farm families and others interested in sustainable agriculture. Members are located primarily in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana, as well as neighboring states of Iowa, Wyoming, and Nebraska. NPSAS brings this action on behalf of its approximately 320 members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 25. Plaintiff MENDOCINO ORGANIC NETWORK is a project of the Cloud Forest Institute, a not­for­profit scientific and educational organization formed in 1996. Founded in 2001 by a small group of residents of Mendocino County, California, Mendocino Organic Network exists to promote sustainable organic agriculture and businesses in its bioregion and supports and promotes local organic and biodynamic farms and businesses. See http://www.mendocinorenegade.com/. Mendocino Organic Network brings this action on behalf 12
28. Plaintiff FAMILY FARMER SEED COOPERATIVE is a farmer­owned marketing cooperative with members in Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and North Dakota. See http://organicseedcoop.com/. FFSC believes that the decreasing number of cultivars and gene traits in the commercial seed market makes it imperative that open­pollinated seeds are preserved and quality maintenance and breeding programs are undertaken. FFSC's purpose is to strengthen seed sovereignty and seed security. It's mission is to foster the development and improvement of open­pollinated varieties suitable to organic production systems and produce and distribute high quality, open­pollinated, organic seed. FFSC brings this action on behalf of itself and its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 29. Plaintiff SUSTAINABLE LIVING SYSTEMS is a non­profit citizen's organization that was formed to demonstrate and teach a way of living where its impact (or footprint) on the Earth's ecosystems is minimized. See http://www.sustainablelivingsystems.org/. Sustainable Living Systems' primary focus is to build a local food system. Sustainable Living Systems brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 30. Plaintiff GLOBAL ORGANIC ALLIANCE is an organic certifying membership organization established in 1997. See http://www.goa­online.org/. Global Organic Alliance brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 31. Plaintiff FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW! is a grassroots not­for­profit membership 14
organization dedicated to building a sustainable food system that protects our natural environment, sustains farmers and nourishes families. See http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/. Food Democracy Now! has over 250,00 members, including thousands of farmers, and brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 32. Plaintiff FAMILY FARM DEFENDERS INC. is a not­for­profit grassroots organization made up of farmers, consumers and others concerned about sustainable agriculture, farm workers rights, consumer safety, rural justice, animal welfare, fair trade, and food sovereignty. See http://familyfarmers.org/. FFD has approximately 5,000 members in all fifty states, though most are concentrated in the Midwest. FFD exists to create a farmer­controlled and consumer­oriented food and fiber system, based upon democratically controlled institutions that empower farmers to speak for and respect themselves in their quest for social and economic justice. FFD has worked to create opportunities for farmers to join together in new cooperative endeavors, form a mutual marketing agency, and forge alliances with consumers through providing high quality food products while returning a fair price to farmers. FFD brings this action on behalf of its members, some of whom are at risk of being contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and consequently being sued by Defendants for patent infringement. 33. Plaintiff FARM­TO­CONSUMER LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ("FTCLDF") is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit membership organization that promotes sustainable farming and direct farm­ to­consumer transactions, because they further the common good and general welfare of all Americans. FTCLDF protects and defends the constitutional rights of family farms and 15
Plaintiff Seed Businesses 34. Plaintiff FEDCO SEEDS INC. is a cooperative seed company located in Waterville and Clinton, Maine. See http://www.fedcoseeds.com/. Fedco sells only conventional and organic seed and has a strict no­transgenic seed policy. Fedco sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn, soy beans, beets and alfalfa. 35. Plaintiff ADAPTIVE SEEDS, LLC is a seed company located in Sweet Home, Oregon. See http://www.adaptiveseeds.com/. Adaptive Seeds strictly sells only public domain, open­pollinated seed, and some diverse genepool mixes. None of Adaptive Seeds' seeds are proprietary hybrids, patented or transgenic and all of Adaptive Seeds' seed is grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Adaptive Seeds sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn and beets. 36. Plaintiff SOW TRUE SEED is an independently owned open­pollinated/non­hybrid vegetable, herb and flower seed company specializing in heirloom, certified organic, and traditional Southern varieties based in Asheville, North Carolina. See http://sowtrueseed.com/. 16
Sow True Seed sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn and soybeans. 37. Plaintiff SOUTHERN EXPOSURE SEED EXCHANGE is a seed company located in Mineral, Virginia. See http://www.southernexposure.com/. SESE sells only conventional and organic seed and has a strict no­transgenic seed policy. SESE sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn, soybeans and cotton. 38. Plaintiff MUMM'S SPROUTING SEEDS is a certified organic sprouting seed company based in Canada that sells seed in the United States. See http://www.sprouting.com/usastore/enter.html. Mumm's sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including alfalfa, canola, legumes, and grains. 39. Plaintiff BAKER CREEK HEIRLOOM SEED CO., LLC is an heirloom seed company based in Mansfield, Missouri that sells only open­pollinated and non­transgenic seeds. See http://rareseeds.com/. Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn and soybeans. 40. Plaintiff COMSTOCK, FERRE & CO., LLC is an heirloom seed company based in Wethersfield, Connecticut that sells only open­pollinated and non­transgenic seeds. See http://comstockferre.com/. Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn. 41. Plaintiff SEEDKEEPERS, LLC is based in Santa Barbara, California, and operates Edible Gardens, an heirloom­seed company and biodiversity farm that is part of a growing movement to preserve the natural seeds of the world by sharing the wonder of growing good healthy food. See http://ediblegardens.com/. Edible Gardens sells seeds for a wide variety of 17
food crops, including corn, beets, soybeans and over 50 other varieties. 42. Plaintiff SISKIYOU SEEDS is a certified organic seed company based in Williams, Oregon. See. http://www.siskiyouseeds.com/. Siskiyou Seeds sells seeds for a wide variety of crops, including corn. Siskiyou Seeds feels that transgenic seed technology is being used in a way that is immoral and undermines food sovereignty. The private ownership of our genetic commons transgresses natural laws and is undermining our shared planetary wealth. 43. Plaintiff COUNTRYSIDE ORGANICS is an organic seed and feed store located in Waynesboro, Virginia, that sells, amongst other things, organic corn. http://www.countrysidenatural.com/. 44. Plaintiff CUATRO PUERTAS is a New Mexico community development corporation founded in 2002 through grassroots efforts. Cuatro Puertas' mission is to connect New Mexico’s urban economies with rural agricultural economies. It’s methodology is a framework that assists low­ and moderate­income households to build local assets and wealth through preservation of natural capital and biodiversity. One of Cuatro Puertas' projects is the Arid Crop Seed Cache, a seed collection established to rescue and reintroduce native, heirloom and forgotten crops. As the largest collection in New Mexico, the survival of this seed diversity is crucial for historical, cultural, and biodiversity reasons. The ACSC works directly with farmers and growers to revive these crops through seed saving and breeding workshops, so these crops can attain a place at our tables once again. The ACSC maintains over a thousand accessions, with the goal of ensuring the availability of the seed. ACSC's seeds include seed for popcorn and corn. See 18
51. Plaintiff PHILADELPHIA COMMUNITY FARM, INC, located near Osceola, Wisconsin has been a community supported (CSA) farm for twenty­two years and intends to expand its vegetable seed production to include corn. It conducts education and conservation activities by hosting visiting children, providing care for adults with special needs, and fostering farmland and natural area preservation along the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. 52. Plaintiff GENESIS FARM is located in Blairstown, New Jersey and hosts a community­supported garden that grows a variety of Biodynamic® cultivated vegetables, herbs and fruits on 30 acres. It also conducts a variety of programs focusing on ecological restoration and all aspects of sustainability. It is very clear in its opposition to transgenic seed. 53. Plaintiff CHISPAS FARMS LLC is an organic farm in Albuquerque, New Mexico that currently grows alfalfa, although the prospect of dealing with transgenic seed while attempting to earn and maintain organic certification is rather off­putting and could potentially make the operation unavailable. 54. Plaintiff KIRSCHENMANN FAMILY FARMS INC. is a certified organic farm in South Central, North Dakota that grows alfalfa and used to grow canola. It has been certified organic since 1980. 55. Plaintiff MIDHEAVEN FARMS is a Biodynamic® farm in Park Rapids, Minnesota that grows alfalfa, wheat, and vegetables. 56. Plaintiff KOSKAN FARMS is a certified organic farm in Wood, South Dakota that grows corn and alfalfa. 57. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA CLOVERLEAF FARMS is an organic dairy farm in 20
Merced County, California that feeds organic alfalfa hay, organic corn grain and organic corn silage. 58. Plaintiff NORTH OUTBACK FARM is an organic farm in Wales, North Dakota owned and operated by Janet and Terry Jacobson. It is a grain and livestock farm on which the Jacobsons grow alfalfa, wheat, oats and flax. The farm is located in an area ideally suited for growing canola, but they can not grow canola because of the widespread use of transgenic canola seed in their area posing a contamination threat for any organic canola crop they may wish to grow. 59. Plaintiff TAYLOR FARMS, INC. is an organic seed farm located in Tremonton, Utah, that grows amongst other things, organic alfalfa. 60. Plaintiff JARDIN DEL ALMA is a certified organic seed producer in Monticello, New Mexico that grows seeds for various crops, including corn. 61. Plaintiff RON GARGASZ ORGANIC FARMS is an organic farm in Volant, Pennsylvania that does agricultural research, including on issues relating to grass fed to cattle, and grows soybeans. Ron Gargasz is a Biologist, Adjunct Professor, Researcher and full­time Certified Organic Farmer. From 1976 to 1980 he served as the Conservation Director for the state of Pennsylvania. He has operated Ron Gargasz Organic Farm in Volant, PA for 31 years. Ron was involved in the early organizational work for the creation of the Organic Crop Improvement Association International. He served as the organization's International President in 1989. In 1990 he authored and taught the first Sustainable Agriculture Curriculum in the nation. Gargasz Farms produces a myriad of crops including open pollinated heritage variety 21
corn, soy, spelt, buckwheat, barley, and edible beans. His most recent study with Penn State University reveals his organic grass­fed beef to be 1041% healthier in Omega 6 to 3 fatty acid ratio, higher in CLAs, and higher in Vitamin E, quantifying the healthfulness of Forage Fed Beef. 62. Plaintiff ABUNDANT ACRES is a farm in Laclede County, Missouri. They sell plants in the spring. Their field crops are primarily grown for seed production. They have in the past grown corn and soybeans but stopped for fear of transgenic contamination, and possible resultant litigation. 63. Plaintiff T & D WILLEY FARMS is a certified organic farm in Madera, California that grows almost 50 varieties of vegetables from artichoke to zucchini. 64. Plaintiff QUINELLA RANCH is a certified organic farm in Saskatchwan, Canada that grows a variety of crops, including alfalfa and used to grow canola, and would like to sell into the United States. 65. Plaintiff NATURE'S WAY FARM LTD. is an organic farm in Alberta, Canada that grows alfalfa seed and could sell such seed into the United States. 66. Plaintiff LEVKE AND PETER EGGERS FARM is a strongly anti­transgenic seed farm in Alberta, Canada that grows certified organic seed, including alfalfa, and would like to sell such seed into the United States. 67. Plaintiff FREY VINEYARDS, LTD. makers of certified Biodynamic and Organic wine. Wheat and other crops are grown in the certified Biodynamic and Organic vineyards, and they would like to grow alfalfa and canola, but are concerned about transgenic seed 22
contamination. 68. Plaintiff BRYCE STEPHENS is a certified organic farmer in Jennings, Kansas, where he grows organic alfalfa along with wheat, clover, cane, milo, millett and also raises, bison, beef, poultry and swine. Certified organic since 1994, Mr. Stephens previously grew organic corn and soybeans, but discontinued those crops due to the threat of transgenic seed contamination. 69. Plaintiff CHUCK NOBLE is a conventional farmer who farms in South Dakota. Mr. Noble grows alfalfa forage and seed without transgenic traits. He intends to keep his farm free of genetically engineered traits. In addition, there are feed and food safety issues which are unacceptable. He expects the cattle feed industry to reject the presence of genetically engineered herbicide in their feed. Dairy customers are already rejecting the presence of herbicide in their feed. 70. Plaintiff LARHEA PEPPER is an organic farmer in O'Donnell, Texas, where she grows, or could grow, organic cotton. 71. Plaintiff PAUL ROMERO is an organic farmer in Espanola, New Mexico, where he grows, amongst other crops, sweet corn. 72. Plaintiff DONALD WRIGHT PATTERSON, JR. has been involved with organic agriculture since before chemical agriculture gained a foothold in the years following World War II. In his view, organic has been the convention since the dawn of human agriculture, and he considers it intolerable that a half­century old chemical usurpation of agricultural and environmental wisdom is now called "conventional." He has resided in Fauquier County, 23
Virginia for many years and his farming ancestors settled in Frederick County, Virginia in 1730 where the family farmstead and barns still exist. Prior to that the family farmed in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Patterson has the capacity and desire to farm organic alfalfa. 73. Each of the farm and farmer Plaintiffs is fearful that they could become contaminated by Defendants' transgenic seed and then be accused by Defendants of patent infringement. This fear arises from the wide spread knowledge of the contaminating character of transgenic seed and of Defendants' aggressive patent assertion tactics. This fear causes some of the farming Plaintiffs to forgo growing certain crops, including specifically corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, soybeans and alfalfa, since it is widely known that those crops are currently under severe threat of transgenic seed contamination. 74. Each farm and farmer Plaintiff could, if they desired, purchase Defendant's transgenic seed as such seed is widely available to the public. In doing so, they expect they would be required to enter into a license agreement for Defendants' transgenic seed patents. Defendants 75. Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. It is authorized to do and is doing business in New York and this judicial district. 76. Defendant MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC is a company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. It is authorized to do and is doing business in New York and this judicial district.
77. Since they are, upon information and belief, commonly owned and managed, Defendants are collectively referred to herein as Monsanto. THE PERILS OF TRANSGENIC SEED 78. Genetic modification, also known as genetic engineering, is the purposeful alteration of an organism’s genetic material. The first genetically engineered organisms were bacteria created in 1973. In the 1980’s, many companies, including principally Monsanto, sought to utilize genetic engineering in agriculture with transgenic plants. 79. Transgenic seeds are genetically engineered through the introduction of foreign genes and regulatory sequences into the seeds’ genome. The genes of one species are put into the DNA of another. The process of incorporating exogenous DNA into a cell is called transformation. The foreign genetic material, when expressed in transformed organisms, can, for example, immunize the plant against glyphosate­based herbicides, such as RoundUp, a highly toxic glyphosate­based product developed and sold by Monsanto. 80. Transformation permanently alters plant DNA. During the life cycle of a transgenic plant, human­engineered genetic material is replicated and transferred through natural life cycle processes. Thus the transformed genes persist in all of the seeds that crop bears. The transformed genetic material also spreads through natural pollination to other transgenic crops, non­transgenic crops, and even native plants. 81. Monsanto widely markets transgenic seed to the public under the trade name Roundup Ready. Monsanto sells Roundup Ready seed for corn, canola, soybean, sugar beet, 25
alfalfa and cotton. Monsanto dominates the market for transgenic seeds and traits. Monsanto currently holds the largest percentage of the global proprietary seed market of any company. In the United States, Monsanto’s control of the seed market is so high that over 85­90% of all soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola grown in the U.S. contains Monsanto’s patented genes. 82. Monsanto’s most predominant transgenic trait is glyphosate tolerance. This trait makes crops tolerant of Monsanto’s non­selective, glyphosate­based herbicide, called Roundup. Roundup causes severe injury or destruction when applied to crops that are not glyphosate tolerant. While Monsanto’s patent on glyphosate expired in 2000, Monsanto continues to hold many patents covering the technology for glyphosate­tolerant transgenic crops. 83. Although Monsanto has come to dominate various crops within the agricultural industry with its transgenic technology, many farmers, including the farming plaintiffs here, continue to grow crops from seed that is not transgenic. There are many reasons to grow non­ transgenic crops. A growing number of consumers prefer to eat non­transgenic foods based on health and environmental concerns, taste preferences, and the desire to support local farmers. Additionally, non­transgenic crops certified as organic often provide a price premium because consumers prefer them. Finally, some farmers may choose to grow non­transgenic crops because the seed is less expensive and/or because they wish to avoid the potential risks transgenic crops pose to humans, animals, and the environment. 84. Farmers who grow non­transgenic crops have strong incentives to ensure their crops are free of transgenic genes such as Monsanto’s trait for glyphosate resistance. Transgenic 26
87. There is extensive hard evidence of the harm farmers can suffer as a result of contamination of their crop with transgenic genes. One of the most public examples is the case of Liberty Link rice. Liberty Link 601 (“LL601”) was a rice variety genetically engineered to tolerate Liberty herbicide. It was field­tested on a small number of sites between 1999 and 2001 but had not been approved for human consumption. In 2006, extensive LL601 contamination of the commercial rice supply was discovered. The contamination led to multiple countries banning the importation of U.S. rice, implementation of strict testing requirements, and removal from the market of entire rice varieties. Economic loss in the 2006/2007 crop years was estimated at $254 million. The worldwide total economic loss due to the LL601 contamination event was estimated at $741 million to $1.285 billion. 88. Non­transgenic crops are vulnerable to contamination by transgenic seed at almost every step of the production process: before seed is purchased; through seed drift or scatter; through cross­pollination; through commingling via tainted equipment during harvest or post­ harvest activities; during processing; during transportation; and during storage. 89. The contamination problem is compounded because contamination cannot be easily ascertained. For example, genetic modification cannot be detected by visually examining the seed or crop. Instead, if an organic farmer wants to determine whether Monsanto’s patented gene is present in her crop, she must conduct genetic testing, which can be extremely expensive. Additionally, if and when an organic farmer determines that transgenic material is present in her crop, it is extremely difficult to eradicate the contamination, as the contaminated seed must be destroyed and the organic farmer will lose all use of that field for several years in order to ensure 28
that it is completely purged of the transgenic seed contamination. 90. In addition to the economic harm caused by transgenic seed, it also has potentially severe negative health effects. For one, the design of Monsanto's transgenic seed is purely so that it will be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. This means that as Monsanto's transgenic seed becomes more widely used, then so too will glyphosate. As such, the existence of Monsanto's transgenic seed is directly responsible for the increased use of glyphosate, and in particular Monsanto's brand of glyphosate, Roundup, which studies have shown is harmful to human health. Sophie Richard, et al., Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase, Environ Health Perspect 113:716­72 (2005) (“We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals”). 91. Studies suggest an association between glyphosate use and the risk of non­Hodgkin lymphoma. A.J. De Roos, et al., Integrative Assessment of Multiple Pesticides as Risk Factors for Non­Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Among Men, Occup. Environ. Med., 60:E11 (2003); and, L. Hardell, et al., Exposure to Pesticides as Risk Factor for Non­Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Hairy Cell Leukemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Swedish Case­Control Studies. Leuk Lymphoma, 43:1043–1049 (2002). Another study that included more than fifty­thousand pesticide applicators suggested a link between glyphosate use and multiple myoeloma. A.J. De Roos, et al., Cancer Incidence Among Glyphosate­Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study , Environ Health Perspect, 113: 49­54 (2005). Myeloma has been associated with agents that cause either DNA damage or immune suppression. A recent 2009 article demonstrated the DNA damage caused by glyphosate based herbicides. C. Gasnier, et al., 29
Glyphosate­Based Herbicides are Toxic and Endocrine Disruptors in Human Cell Lines , Toxicology 262:184­191 (2009). 92. Others have suggested an association between Monsanto's transgenic seed, its inherent increase in glyphosate use and animal miscarriages. J. Zelman, Monsanto's Roundup Ready Crops Contain Organism Causing Animal Miscarriages, Scientist Says, Huffington Post, (February 23, 2011) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto­roundup­ready­ miscarriages_n_827135.html) (“Recent research claims that Monsanto's Roundup Ready transgenic crops contain an organism, previously unknown to science, that can cause miscarriages in farm animals”). 93. But transgenic seed is not only a threat to human health due to its inherent increase in the use of glyphosate. There are also serious questions about whether transgenic seed itself has an effect on human health. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, et al., A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health , International Journal of Biological Sciences , 5(7):706­726 (2009) (“Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption ”); SW Ewen, et al., Effect of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestine, Lancet 354 (1987): 1353–4 (October 1999). 94. While transgenic seed poses many dangers for society, its purported benefits have not been achieved. While Monsanto makes many bold promises for its transgenic seed, those promises have universally been proven false. For example, Monsanto's propaganda surrounding transgenic seed expresses a promise that its use will increase the quantity of production that can 30
99. To be sure, this is why many countries througout the world, including Japan, Germany and France, and many municipalities here in the United States, including several in Vermont and California, have bans or severe limitations on transgenic crops. 100. To be sure, even those jurisdictions that do not outright ban transgenic food, such as the European Union, at least require clear labeling so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions. Monsanto has fought vigorously to defeat any proposal for labeling of transgenic food in the United States, despite evidence that the vast majority of Americans want transgenic food to be labeled. In a recent MSNBC poll that asked, “Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?” over 96% of respondents said, “Yes. It's an ethical issue ­­ consumers should be informed so they can make a choice.” See http://health.newsvine.com/_question/2011/02/25/6131050­do­you­believe­genetically­modified­ foods­should­be­labeled (last visited March 29, 2011). 101. Even Prince Charles of England has long warned against the adoption of transgenic crops. The Prince of Whales said it quite clearly, “And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.” J. Randall, Prince Charles Warns GM Crops Risk Causing The Biggest­ever Environmental Disaster, The Telegraph (August 12, 2008) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3349308/Prince­Charles­warns­GM­crops­risk­ causing­the­biggest­ever­environmental­disaster.html). 102. Thus, since the harm of transgenic seed is known, and the promises of transgenic 33
seed's benefits are false, transgenic seed is not useful for society. MONSANTO'S PATENTS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED Monsanto's ransgenic Seed Patent Portfolio T 103. Upon information and belief, Monsanto owns or is the exclusive licensee of each of the following patents on transgenic seed: A. U.S. Patent No. 5,322,938, entitled “DNA sequence for enhancing the efficiency of transcription”; B. U.S. Patent No. 5,352,605, entitled “Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters”; C. U.S. Patent No. 5,362,865, entitled “Enhanced expression in plants using non­translated leader sequences”; D. U.S. Patent No. 5,378,619, entitled “Promoter for transgenic plants”; E. U.S. Patent No. 5,424,412, entitled “Enhanced expression in plants”; F. U.S. Patent No. 5,463,175, entitled “Glyphosate tolerant plants”; G. U.S. Patent No. 5,530,196, entitled “Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters”; H. U.S. Patent No. 5,554,798, entitled “Fertile glyphosate­resistant transgenic corn plants”; I. U.S. Patent No. 5,593,874, entitled “Enhanced expression in plants”; J. U.S. Patent No. 5,641,876, entitled “Rice actin gene and promoter”;
enolpyruvylshikimate­3­phosphate synthases”. 104. Monsanto licenses these patents in connection with the sale of its transgenic seed. This licensing occurs through prominent license statements contained on the bags of seed themselves and also through Technology/Stewardship Agreements that purchasers of Monsanto's transgenic seed are required to sign. The 2010 Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The agreement is a mass market license available to the general public. In the Agreement, Monsanto offers a license to its transgenic seed patents. Ex. 1, ¶ 14. Each of the patents identified above is listed in the Agreement. Id. 105. Plaintiffs are well aware of Monsanto's licensing of its transgenic seed patents and have no reason to believe that they could not enter into such an Agreement. Monsanto's Aggressive Assertion of its ransgenic Seed Patents T 106. Monsanto zealously enforces its transgenic seed patents. Published reports and Monsanto’s own statements suggest that roughly 500 farmers are investigated for patent infringement each year. Between 1997 and April 2010, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against farmers in at least 27 different states for alleged infringement of its transgenic seed patents and/or breach of its license to those patents. 107. Monsanto's aggressive patent assertion behavior is widely known and has been the subject of substantial media coverage, including being mentioned in countless press articles and the subject of several television news stories and films. See, e.g., Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear, Vanity Fair (May 2008) (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805). The documentaries 36
Food Inc. and The Future of Food, for example, discuss at great length Monsanto's aggressive assertion of its transgenic seed patents. 108. Monsanto has made accusations of patent infringement against those who never wished to possess its transgenic seed. This behavior has been widely reported and is well known by Plaintiffs. For example, on April 26, 2008, the nationally broadcast CBS Evening News included a segment entitled, “Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers: Monsanto Goes To Great Lengths To Protect Its Patents On Genetically Modified Crops.” See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml. The segment described the threats Monsanto made against Mr. and Mrs. David and Dawn Runyon, who never intended to use transgenic seed, “Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement.” Further the news segment continued, “In Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing 'an agreement' with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to come on their land and test for seed contamination. Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two months after that letter was sent.” Id. 109. The CBS Evening News segment also described the harassment of Mr. Mo Parr, a seed cleaner who for years offered his service to farmers who wanted to save seed from one season to plant the next. “Monsanto sued him claiming he was 'aiding and abetting' farmers, helping them to violate the patent.” Id. Thus, Monsanto's willingness to assert its transgenic seed patents against anyone within the seed distribution chain is also widely known. 110. Monsanto's investigation, accusation and litigation of patent infringement claims 37
against other farmers who did not want to be contaminated by transgenic seed, including Roger, Rodney and Greg Nelson, Troy Roush, Percy Schmeiser and others, are widely known and contribute to Plaintiffs' reasonable fear that they, too, could be sued for patent infringement by Monsanto if they were to become contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed. MONSANTO'S TRANSGENIC SEED PATENTS ARE INVALID 111. The Patent Act provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,” may obtain a patent on the invention or discovery. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). An invention is “useful” under section 101 if it is capable of providing some identifiable benefit. See Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534 (1966). To be sure, as Justice Story explained in Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas. 1018 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817), inventions that are “injurious to the well­ being, good policy, or sound morals of society” are unpatentable. Justice Story gave examples of unpatentable inventions, including “a new invention to poison people, or to promote debauchery, or to facilitate private assassination.” Id. at 1019. For at least the reasons discussed above regarding the perils of transgenic seed, Monsanto's transgenic seed is not “useful,” and, therefore, Monsanto's transgenic seed patents are all invalid. 112. Monsanto began applying for patents on glyphosate tolerance in the mid­1980s. Its first patents on the trait were granted in 1990 and are now expired. After pursuing its earliest patents on glyphosate resistance, Monsanto continued to seek and receive patents on Roundup Ready technology for over two decades. Although the United States patent system allows 38
MONSANTO'S TRANSGENIC SEED PATENTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE Misuse 118. Monsanto’s control of the seed market is so high that over 85­90% of all soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola grown in the U.S. contains Monsanto’s patented genes. It unquestionably has dominant market power in the markets for seeds for these crops. Monsanto has misused its patents on transgenic seed to achieve and maintain anticompetitive benefit, including that dominant market power. 119. Since Roundup Ready technology was introduced, the seed market has become increasingly concentrated due to Monsanto's acquisitions of competitors and independent seed companies. Between 2005 and 2010 alone, Monsanto acquired over 30 independent seed companies, many of which also developed germplasm. This increased concentration has diminished consumer choice and slowed innovation. 120. Another result of the concentrated market is a dramatic rise in seed price. According to the USDA, corn seed prices have risen 135 percent since 2001, while soybean prices went up 108 percent over that same period. On information and belief, the royalty paid to Monsanto for the same Roundup Ready trait in soybeans has nearly tripled since 2000 – from $6.50 to over $15 per bag. Additionally, a recent study of seed pricing over the past 35 years found that, between 1975 and 1997, soybean farmers spent between 4 percent and 8 percent of their farm income on seeds, while in 2009, farmers who planted transgenic soybeans spent 16.4 percent of their income on seeds. 121. Since obtaining its transgenic seed patents, Monsanto has sought to protect and 40
Prosecution Laches 124. Monsanto's patents are unenforceable due to prosecution laches because Monsanto caused unreasonable and unexplained delay in the prosecution of the patents that would prejudice Plaintiffs. Equitable Estoppel 125. Monsanto publishes upon its website a page entitled, “Monsanto’s Commitment: Farmers and Patents.” See http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/commitment­farmers­ patents.aspx. In its “Commitment,” Monsanto acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non­transgenic farmers. The Commitment states in part, “We do not exercise our patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.” The “Commitment” does not define what is meant by “trace amounts” or “inadvertent means.” Therefore, the clear message is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non­transgenic seed farmers who come to possess more than “trace amounts” of Monsanto's transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault. 126. Upon information and belief, Monsanto has in fact investigated and pursued action against and/or settlements from farmers who did not want to use its transgenic seed. Due to Monsanto’s evident violation of the Commitment and the Commitment’s indefinite and ambiguous language, Plaintiffs cannot reasonably rely upon the Commitment for assurance that Monsanto will not exercise its patents against them if Monsanto discovers the unintended presence of Monsanto’s transgenic seed in their fields or seed supplies. Monsanto’s Commitment 42
MONSANTO WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REMEDY AGAINST PLAINTIFFS 128. Even if any claim of any Monsanto patent was found to be valid, infringed and enforceable, Monsanto would not be entitled to any award of relief against Plaintiffs. 129. Monsanto would not be entitled to any damages because Monsanto suffers no lost profits when its transgenic seed contaminates the property of a certified organic or non­ transgenic farmer or seed distributor. Further, absolutely no royalty is reasonable because Plaintiffs would never willingly pay any license fee for Monsanto’s patents. 130. Monsanto would also not be entitled to any injunctive relief against Plaintiffs because contamination of Plaintiffs causes no irreparable harm to Monsanto. In fact, the balance of hardships resulting from contamination of Plaintiffs by Monsanto's transgenic seed weighs completely in favor of Plaintiffs, as such contamination threatens to cause them substantial 43
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO ENTITLEMENT TO ANY REMEDY) 147. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 to 146 as if fully set forth herein. 148. Monsanto is not entitled to any damages if any Plaintiff is held to infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent in suit. 149. Monsanto is not entitled to any injunctive relief if any Plaintiff is held to infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent in suit. 150. Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Monsanto is not entitled to any relief if any Plaintiff is held to infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent in suit. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to: A. Declare that each claim of each patent in suit is invalid; B. Declare that Plaintiffs cannot be held to infringe any claim of any patent in suit; C. Declare that each patent in suit is unenforceable; D. Declare that Monsanto is not entitled to any relief if any Plaintiff is held to infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent; E. Enjoin Monsanto from taking any action to enforce any patent in suit; F. Issue an order requiring Monsanto to pay Plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this action; and G. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just. 46
Documents Similar To Part 2 - Big Bad MonsantoSkip carouselMonsantoMonsantoJPM_Monsanto_Company_(MO_2011-04-11_575338Monsanto Income Drops by Nearly Half - NYTimes 1006ten-things-monsantoJPM_Monsanto_Roundup_Reb_2011-04-07_573869Monsanto Versus FarmersEthics Monsanto 2Monsanto-poster Child of Corporate DeceitGMO"s, Whole Food, Monsanto, The Government, The Farmer, The Consumer, The Conspiracy, Why?Monsanto_2010France Finds Monsanto Guilty of LyingS510Sales and Distribution-MONSANTOJeffrey Smith Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal HealthOSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint (1)Registration by Noble Strategies to lobby for Monsanto Company (300278182)monsanto_beatsmonsantoOrganic Seed Growers et al v. MonsantoMonsanto and Obama AdminMonsanto StatementMonsanto, Handled with CARE, Relief Agency holds talks with troubled Monsanto, Who's helping Who Monsanto Trait QA requirements2010Part 1 - Big Bad MonsantoRegistration by Sidley Austin LLP to lobby for Baidu Inc.Monsanto - presentationMonsanto SWOT AnalysisNarrative Report-mam Monsanto2Monsanto case studyDocuments About FarmsSkip carouselThe Shocking Truth about Goats' MilkSpring 2013, Tennessee Home & FarmAgricultural AbundancePublic Law American Recovery and Revitalization Act of 2009; Economic Stimulus Act signed by President Barack Obama February 17, 2009Op-EdFAQ on State Farm settlementPathways 2013 SummerFOODSweet Meadow Farm vs. CommonwealthHernandez v State of New York McMinnville-Water-and-Light-Electric-RatesCandlewick Press Read to Us! Story Hour Kit - Spring 2014Organic Farm 2016Global Farm Animal Production and Global WarmingThe role of smallholder farm organizations in the promotion of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), agricultural extension and communications – a view from the private sectorRed Bank Squadron - 01/22/1942Customs Declarations of Some of the 9/11 HijackersChasing Redbird by Sharon CreechHillside Animal Sanctuary Newsletter (Autumn/Winter 2012)Terrible Twelve Farm Policy Coalition LetterFran Smith - Ag Coalition Letter to Joint Select CommitteeAfter the Drought12666_1975-19791587_1950-195443596_1925-1929Pig Talescfc_19120824.pdfMcMinnville-Water-and-Light-Electric-Rates09-17-16 EditionThree Acres and Liberty by Hall, Bolton, 1854-1938More From Crossroads MissionSkip carouselPart 1 - Big Bad MonsantoSpring and Summer 2010 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring and Summer 2009 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2009 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2009 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2008 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring 2008 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSummer 2008 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2008 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2008 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring 2007 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSummer 2007 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2007 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2007 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring 2006 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSummer 2006 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2006 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2006 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring 2005 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSummer 2005 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2005 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2005 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring 2004 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSummer 2004 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2004 Crossroads Mission NewsletterWinter 2004 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSpring 2003 Crossroads Mission NewsletterSummer 2003 Crossroads Mission NewsletterFall 2003 Crossroads Mission Newsletter