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.
Manager, Public and Industry Affairs