Percy Schmeiser and the seed cleaners

"So, the "honest broker" Mr Freisen tested two batches of seed taken from the same original sample. The sample that came directly from the HFM treatment facility scored 95-98% Roundup resistant, and the sample that had passed through Mr Schmeiser's hands scored 63-65% Roundup resistant.

How can this be? The test is reasonably reliable and accurate. There is no way such a divergent result could occur without dishonesty. Obviously, Monsanto could not have adulterated the batch going directly from HFM to Mr Freisen."

[Email to GMO Pundit]
...The following comes from an e-mail to Dr. Ellen Censky, Director, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (SNOMNH). As you will recall, about two weeks ago, I had conversations with her about the fact that the SNOMNH was showing the film, "The Future of Food." I sent her excerpts from the Schmeiser Federal Court Trial of Canada (Judge McKay's) opinion. I also sent her the below analysis of several paragraphs of that opinion.
I thank Alan McHughen who independently highlighted the same evidence to me in an e-mail. Alan understood the evidence more clearly than I did.

Drew L. Kershen, Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law

Nov. 16, 2005

Dr. Censky:

The resolution we discussed last evening and you and Mr. Cawley discussed this morning is acceptable to me. I did not make clear when I sent the earlier e-mail to you this morning with information on the Schmeiser case that I was expecting only the key paragraphs to be photocopied and distributed. I do not expect the opinions to be photocopied and distributed because that is overload.

I have read these opinions several times but until this morning I had not noticed something really interesting and telling about the evidence from Mr. Schmeiser himself. The testimony showed he had taken the seed to the Humbollt Flour Mill (HFM) for cleaning. HFM is a commercial seed treatment facility owned by Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

Farmers take their seed for cleaning and treatment prior to planting. HFM treats the seed which the farmer then collects and sows. Unbeknownst to Mr Schmeiser at the time, HFM took a sample of his batch of canola seed (HFM does this routinely to protect against the occasional unscrupulous farmer who later claims HFM returned poorer quality seed than the farmer initially provided).

During the investigation, this sample of Schmeiser's seed was subsampled by HFM (who had no direct interest in the case) and provided to the litigants and to an independent scientist (Mr. Friesen) at University of Manitoba. The first subsample went to Monsanto, the other two subsamples went, (text following from the official trial decision that I sent to you this morning):

"2) to Mr. Schmeiser in July 1999 which he

a) used in part for a grow-out test in his yard, results of which showed 63 to 65% germinating plants survived spraying with Roundup; and b) forwarded to University of Manitoba for testing by Mr. Freisen who recorded results generally similar to those of Mr. Schmeiser;

3) to Mr. Freisen directly from Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in April 2000 for grow-out test from which a very high portion, 95-98%, of germinating seed survived spraying with Roundup."

Notice Schmeiser split his sample into two: One for his own grow-out test, and the other sent to Mr Freisen for "independent testing". When Mr Schmeiser analyzed his own test, it came back 63-65% Roundup resistant. The second portion, sent by Mr Schmeiser to Mr Freisen, came back with "results generally similar" to Mt Schmeiser's own test. This consistency suggests Mr Schmeiser conducted an honest test, because the independent lab (Freisen) got a similar result.

However, this result was inconsistent with Monsanto results. When Monsanto tested the HFM sample, it came back 95-98% Roundup resistant. Someone is being dishonest, as the seeds all came from the same original batch and there's no honest explanation for the discrepancy.

The answer is provided by HFM's third subsample, which was sent directly from HFM (Saskatchewan Wheat Pool) to the same Mr Freisen at University of Manitoba. Mr Freisen now found 95-98% of the seeds were Roundup resistant.

So, the "honest broker" Mr Freisen tested two batches of seed taken from the same original sample. The sample that came directly from the HFM treatment facility scored 95-98% Roundup resistant, and the sample that had passed through Mr Schmeiser's hands scored 63-65% Roundup resistant.

How can this be? The test is reasonably reliable and accurate. There is no way such a divergent result could occur without dishonesty. Obviously, Monsanto could not have adulterated the batch going directly from HFM to Mr Freisen.

Internal to the opinion is the evidence that Mr. Schmeiser apparently tampered with the evidence on his subsample. Leaving aside that 63 to 65% Roundup Ready canola seed is too high a percentage for any of his "explanations" to be plausible, the fact that the independent
sample was 95 to 98% Roundup Ready, just as Monsanto found in the subsample provided to it by HFM, means that Schemeiser must have tampered with the evidence. I now realize that Judge MacKay assuredly realized this. Judge MacKay concluded that Schmeiser was tampering
because he was lying. I am the one who had never understood this evidence (internal to the opinion) until this morning.

What is so sad is that your audience has no way - no information, no adequate contextual sophistication - to catch on to this big lie when Schmeiser looks directly into the camera of The Future of Food and tells his fib (his story). I have read this opinion and thought about this
opinion for four years and I did not see the meaning of the evidence until this morning.

I will be happy to be a part of a forum on agricultural biotechnology next year. I am working on several major articles that are well worth while presenting at such forum. One article is almost finished. When it is accepted for publication, I will send it to you. I will also be happy to be part of the forum while speaking directly about the Schmeiser case and the sophisticated lie perpetrated by him and the filmmakers. It is a story that deserves to be told.

I express again my appreciation to you for allowing me to speak to you yesterday.

Best regards,

Drew

Update

More explanation of 98% Agbioview Newsletter Feb 16 2006

Monsanto v. Schmeiser

- Drew L Kershen - dkershen.at.ou.edu- Earl Sneed Centennail Professor of Law, University of Oklahom College of Law

As reported in AgBioView (Feb. 14, 2006 edition), Percy Schmeiser has released a video about Monsanto suing him for patent infringement. Schmeiser, of course, claims to be telling the truth.

In response, AgBioView printed Rick Roush's analysis of Schmeiser's claims. Rick does an excellent review of the inaccuracies in Schmeiser's claims. Congratulations to Rick.

I would like to add one additional point about Monsanto v. Schmeiser. I do not know whether Schmeiser's video attacks the tests and samples showing 95-98% Round-up Ready canola on his 1000+ acres. Schmeiser has done so in speeches. Many of his supporters have similarly claimed that the tests and the samples were bogus.

However, Alan McHughen and I, both independently but almost simultaneously, clearly saw several months ago that the opinion by the Canadian trail court answers the claim by Schmeiser that the tests and samples were bogus. As I do not have access to the opinion from where I am typing this e-mail, I cannot cite the precise paragraphs of the Federal Court Trial opinion. But if anyone wants to find those paragraphs, simply search the document for the words "test" or "sample" and you will quickly and easily find the paragraphs to which I am referred.

In the opinion, the uncontradicted testimony went as follows:

1. Schmeiser took his "saved seed" (the specially selected seed that Rick highlights) to have it cleaned by the Humbolt Company.

2. Unbeknownst to Schmeiser, Humbolt Co. saved a sample of Schmeiser's seed. [The opinion does not say why Humbolt Co saved a sample but those familiar with clearning seed know that companies save seed to protect themselves if a farmer later complains that the Company kept his good seed and returned poor quality seed.]

3. At trial, the litigants learned of the Humbolt saved seed and both sides demanded that it be tested because neither side trusted the other's sides sampling or testing.

4. The court order Humbolt to divide its sample into three portions -- one portion sent directly to Schmeiser for his testing; one portion sent directly to an independent court appointed expert; one portion sent directly to Monsanto Canada for its testing.

a. Schmeiser divided his portion into two portions -- one for his own testing; the second Schmeiser portion, Schmeiser sent to the same independent court appointed expert.

5. Results of the tests:

a. Schmeiser's test showed 60-65% RR canola on the portion he kept for his own testing that Humbolt had sent directly to him.

b. Monsanto Canada's test showed 95-98% RR canola on the portion sent directly to it.

c. The independent court appointed expert found the following:

i) On the portion Humbolt sent to him directly, 95-98% RR canola. The same result as that obtained by Monsanto Canada.

ii) On the portion received from Schmeiser, 60-65 RR canola. The same result as Schmeiser got on his test.

--

End of testimony.