Farmers' conspiracy claims move forward against Monsanto

St. Louis Daily Record & St. Louis Countian, Jan 8, 2007 by Allison Retka

Monsanto struggled to rebuff allegations of bribery and conspiracy Friday morning before a federal judge who was not impressed by the company's arguments.

U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber said Monsanto's statements were "a little bit superficial," and "not persuasive," as attorneys for the St. Louis-based agriculture company pursued their motion to dismiss a potential class-action suit in the federal court in St. Louis.

The suit, now in its third year before Webber, was brought against the agriculture company by corn and soybean farmers in 13 states, including Missouri. The farmers claim Monsanto bribed other bio-tech companies such as Pioneer HiBred and DuPont and used them to dominate the seed-production market until it held a monopoly over the industry and could fix and raise prices indiscriminately.

Attorneys for Monsanto repeatedly denied the conspiracy charges, insisting Monsanto has been locked in intense litigation over patent licenses with both companies for most of the last decade.

Monsanto would not likely conspire with these rival businesses, and neither would it be economically plausible for DuPont and Pioneer to hand over their chunks of the seed market for small portions of Monsanto's monopoly profits, said Robert Weiner, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney for Monsanto.

In fact, the court can dismiss a case on the basis of implausible economic claims like this one, Weiner reminded the judge.

But Webber just smiled.

"The way this biotechnology environment applies, what is one day a fierce competitor is another day a joint party," he said from the bench. He gestured to the defense table where six lawyers for the bio-tech companies sat. "I see faces from another case where everyone was at each other's throats."

The attorneys chuckled, but Webber remained unconvinced.

The lead attorney for the plaintiff farmers, Adam Levitt of Chicago, said it is the same economic claims that reveal Monsanto's power to overcharge struggling farmers and dominate the market.

Levitt said that since DuPont succumbed to the "bribery orbit" of Monsanto, its share of soybean seed sales dove from 11 percent to 1 percent. Nearly 98 percent of U.S. soybean crops originate from Monsanto seeds, he said.

Should the suit continue and receive class certification, claimants could include most soybean farmers in the United States, he added. Webber asked if the plaintiffs had considered how many potential plaintiffs could be included in the class, and Levitt admitted the attorneys didn't have an estimate.

The United Soybean Board, a lobby based in St. Louis, represents more than 608,000 U.S. soybean farmers, according to its Web site. The American Soybean Association, also operating out of St. Louis, represents another 27,000 farmers.

The plaintiffs' claims are timely, Levitt said, because Monsanto is still licensing genetically modified corn and soybean seeds and farmers are still buying the seeds at inflated prices and planting them.

"This is a situation of continuing conduct," he said. "At the end of the day, the farmers are still being hurt by the wrongful actions here."

On rebuttal, Weiner insisted Monsanto has done nothing illegal or improper in using DuPont and Pioneer as agents who can distribute seed licenses and collect fees for the company.

"Monsanto is entitled to license its product," he said. "Monsanto can set the price for its own technology."