

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision January 13 in the landmark federal lawsuit, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. Farmers were denied the right to argue their case in court and gain protection from potential abuse by the agrichemical and genetic engineering giant Monsanto. Additionally, the high court decision dashes the hopes of family farmers who sought the opportunity to prove in court Monsanto's genetically engineered seed patents are invalid.
"While the Supreme Court's decision to not give organic and other non-GMO farmers the right to seek preemptive protection from Monsanto's patents at this time is disappointing, it should not be misinterpreted as meaning that Monsanto has the right to bring such suits," said Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto. "Indeed, in light of the Court of Appeals decision, Monsanto may not sue any contaminated farmer for patent infringement if the level of contamination is less than one percent," Ravicher explained. "For farmers contaminated by more than one percent, perhaps a day will come to address whether Monsanto's patents may be asserted against them. We are confident that if the courts ever hear such a case, they will rule for the non-GMO farmers," Ravicher stated.
Farmers had sought Court protection under the Declaratory Judgment Act that, should they become the innocent victims of crop contamination by Monsanto's patented gene-splice technology, they could not perversely be sued for patent infringement.
The historic lawsuit was filed in 2011 in Federal District Court in Manhattan. The large plaintiff group numbers 83 individual American and Canadian family farmers, independent seed companies, agricultural organizations and public interest groups. The combined memberships of these plaintiff groups total over 1 million citizens, including many non-GMO farmers and over 25% of North America's certified organic farmers.
"The Supreme Court failed to grasp the extreme predicament family farmers find themselves in," said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead plaintiff OSGATA. "The Court of Appeals agreed our case had merit. However, the safeguards they ordered are insufficient to protect our farms and our families. This high court which gave corporations the ability to patent life forms in 1980, and under Citizens United in 2010 gave corporations the power to buy their way to election victories, has now in 2014 denied farmers the basic right of protecting themselves from the notorious patent bully Monsanto," Gerritsen said.
"The Appellate Court decision could leave Canadian farmers out in the cold because their protection may not extend to Canada at all," said Saskatchewan organic grain farmer Arnold Taylor, a member of plaintiff member Canadian Organic Growers (COG). "Like many Canadian farmers, we sell crop into the United States and can therefore be liable to claims of patent infringement by Monsanto."
In a complicated ruling issued in June 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., American farmers were handed a partial victory when the three justices agreed with the farmers' assertion that contamination by Monsanto was inevitable. The justices ordered Monsanto not to sue American farmers whose fields were contaminated with trace amounts of patented material, which the Court defined as 1%.
"U.S. family farmers should not have to endure legal intimidation by giant corporate agribusinesses, like Monsanto, when genetic pollution from their products contaminates crops," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute, one of the plaintiffs.
Notably, none of the plaintiffs are customers of Monsanto. None have signed licensing agreements with Monsanto. The plaintiffs do not want Monsanto's seed and they do not want Monsanto's gene-spliced technology and have sought legal protection from significant economic harm to their businesses and way of life.
"We have a fourth generation farm," said organic dairy farmer and plaintiff Rose Marie Burroughs of California Cloverleaf Farms. "Monsanto cannot be trusted. Their refusal to provide a binding legal covenant not to sue our fellow farmers would make anyone wonder, what are their real motives? GMO contamination levels can easily rise above 1% and then we would have zero protection from a costly and burdensome lawsuit."
Significant contamination events, including Starlink corn and LibertyLink rice, have already cost farmers and the food companies nearly $2 billion dollars. In the past year alone, the discovery of Monsanto's illegal GMO wheat in an Oregon farmer's field and GMO alfalfa in Washington state sent foreign markets, where GMOs are not wanted, reeling. In both instances farmers' economic livelihoods were put at risk as buyers in foreign markets refused to buy the GMO contaminated crops.
-30-
MORE:
In a related situation, Canadian soybean farmer Stephen Webster of Ontario experienced just how abusively Monsanto treats innocent contamination victims. Through no fault of his own, Webster, who farms with his elderly father, had his 2012 identify-preserved (IP) non-GMO soybean crop contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetically engineered seed. Their soybeans were ruined for export to specialty markets in Japan. "First Monsanto claimed we had too many bees and that we were at fault for the contaminated crop," said Webster. "Then they threatened to run up $100,000 in legal bills that we would have to pay." Tragically, Webster's story is the norm in farm country, with Monsanto using its extreme economic power to silence family farmers even before they can legally defend themselves.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
"It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized," said the advocacy group VoteVets.
Before the end of the year, the Trump administration is planning to eliminate up to 35,000 healthcare jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, a chronically understaffed agency that has already lost tens of thousands of employees to the White House's sweeping assault on the federal workforce.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the targeted positions—many of which are unfilled—include doctors, nurses, and support staff. A spokesperson for the VA, led by former Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), described the jobs as "mostly Covid-era roles that are no longer necessary."
VA workers, veterans advocates, and a union representing hundreds of thousands of department employees disputed that characterization as the agency faces staff shortages across the country.
"We are all doing the work of others to compensate,” one VA employee told the Post. “The idea that relief isn’t coming is really, really disappointing.”
Thomas Dargon Jr., deputy general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, said remaining VA employees "are obviously going to be facing the brunt of any further job cuts or reorganization that results in employees having to do more work with less."
The advocacy organization VoteVets cast the job cuts as another step toward the longstanding GOP goal of privatizing the VA.
"This is outrageous," the group wrote on social media. "It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized."
"We must expand the VA, not hollow it out."
News of the impending job cuts came months after the Trump administration moved to gut collective bargaining protections for many VA employees and as recent staffing cuts continued to hamper veterans' services nationwide.
"Wait times for new mental health appointments have increased sharply since January in my home state, Connecticut," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during a Senate hearing earlier this month. "For example, the most recent data shows the current wait time for a new patient mental health appointment at the Orange VA Clinic in Connecticut—an outpatient facility specializing in mental health—is 208 days."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement Sunday that "it is unacceptable that the US Department of Veterans Affairs plans to eliminate as many as 35,000 healthcare positions this month."
"This is especially outrageous given the reality that VA facilities in Vermont and across the country already face severe staffing challenges," said Sanders. "When someone puts their life on the line to defend this country in uniform, we in turn must provide them with the best quality healthcare available. These layoffs are unacceptable and must be reversed. We must expand the VA, not hollow it out. And I will do everything I can to make that happen."
"The 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country," said one critic.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, is taking criticism for lending support to US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," Machado praised Trump's policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing oil tankers that had been docked at Venezuelan ports.
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere," Machado told CBS News.
Machado elaborated that she supported Trump's actions because the Maduro government was "not a conventional dictatorship," but "a very complex criminal structure that has turned Venezuela into a safe haven of international crime and terrorist activities."
Trump's campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug-trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
Trump has also said that he would soon authorize strikes against purported drug traffickers on Venezuelan soil, even though he has received no congressional authorization to conduct such an operation against a sovereign nation.
Machado's embrace of Trump as he potentially positions the US to launch a regime-change war in Venezuela drew swift criticism from opponents of American imperialism.
SussexBylines columnist Ross McNally questioned whether someone who is going on the record to support military aggression against her own country was really the right choice to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
"The Nobel Committee's decision to give the Peace Prize to Machado is bizarre for several reasons," he explained. "Firstly, its description of Machado’s ‘tireless work promoting democratic rights’ ignores the fact that she supported the attempted coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez in 2002... Alongside her encouragement for Trump’s military escalation, this jars somewhat with the Committee’s description."
The Machado interview was also criticized by Venezuelan journalist Madelein Garcia, who argued in a post on X that it was ironic to see that "the 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country."
Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi also excoriated the Nobel Committee for overlooking Machado's support of militarism when it decided to award her a prize intended for peacemakers.
"Nobel Farce Prize Winner Maria Corina Machado is not a freedom fighter, she’s a CIA asset and de facto spokeswoman for US corporations," he wrote. "Here she is smiling gleefully at the prospect of selling $1.7 trillion of infrastructure and resources should the US carry out regime change in Venezuela and install her in Miraflores, promising 'we have a massive privatisation program waiting for you.'"
"Every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?"
With floor votes expected this week, top members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are urging fellow lawmakers in the US House to back a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from launching an unauthorized war on Venezuela.
“As Trump once again threatens ‘land strikes on Venezuela,’ every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?" said Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Chuy García (D-Ill.), respectively the deputy chair and the whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). "This is not a partisan issue: Three in four Americans oppose a regime-change war to overthrow the Venezuelan government, including two-thirds of Republicans."
Trump's belligerent rhetoric and recent military action in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—including the illegal bombing of vessels and seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker—are "driving us toward a catastrophic forever war in Venezuela," Omar and García warned, urging lawmakers to pass H.Con.Res. 61 and H.Con.Res. 64.
The first resolution, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), would require Trump to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere, unless authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force."
The other, introduced earlier this month by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), is explicitly designed to prevent a direct US attack on Venezuela.
"Congress hereby directs the president to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force," reads the measure, which is co-sponsored by two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.).
In their statement over the weekend, Omar and García said that "both Democrats and Republicans must send a strong message to the Trump administration: Only Congress can authorize offensive military force, not the president."
"Trump is deploying U.S. personnel to seize Venezuelan oil tankers in international waters. He has launched double-tap airstrikes killing capsized and defenseless individuals. Trump declared a no-fly zone on Venezuelan airspace, deployed F-18 fly-overs in the Gulf of Venezuela, and refused to rule out troop deployments, while threatening to overthrow heads of state across the region," the lawmakers said. "These are illegal hostilities that could destabilize the entire region and fuel mass migration. Congress must stop this unconstitutional military campaign by passing these War Powers Resolutions."