Guilty as Charged
9,566 jurors voted Guilty & 11 voted Not Guilty
The case against Monsanto was not built around a single product, lawsuit, or allegation. The evidence presented a much larger picture of one of the world’s most powerful agricultural corporations and the methods it used to protect and expand its control over seeds, chemicals, farmers, and agricultural markets.
Monsanto faced charges including fraud and deceit, negligence, ecological mayhem, poisoning of plants, humans and animals, abusive actions against farmers, malicious legal action, and improper influence over the United States government and legislative process. After considering the evidence, the Citizens for Justice jury found Monsanto guilty as charged.
One of the most compelling areas of evidence involved Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. This was not simply an accusation made by Monsanto’s critics. French courts considered advertising that portrayed Roundup using reassuring environmental claims, including references to the product being “clean,” biodegradable and safe for the environment. The French proceedings concluded that the advertising was misleading, and France’s highest court rejected the appeal in 2009. The court record specifically discussed the potential for the advertising to give consumers a misleading impression regarding Roundup’s environmental effects. (Légifrance)
For the Citizens for Justice jury, that independent judicial finding provided substantial support for the charge of fraud and deceit.
The evidence concerning Monsanto’s treatment of American farmers was equally significant. Monsanto patented genetically engineered seed technology and aggressively enforced agreements restricting farmers from saving and replanting patented seed. A Center for Food Safety investigation reported that Monsanto had established a substantial operation devoted to investigating farmers and pursuing alleged patent and technology-agreement violations. By 2012, the organization reported 142 Monsanto lawsuits against farmers involving alleged violations of its agreements or genetically engineered seed patents. (Center for Food Safety)
Monsanto maintained that it was legitimately protecting valuable intellectual property. But the evidence presented another side of the story: individual farmers facing investigations, demands, settlements and potentially devastating litigation from a multinational corporation possessing financial and legal resources far beyond their own. To the Citizens for Justice jury, this supported the allegations concerning intimidation, threats and abusive legal actions against farmers.
Questions concerning Monsanto’s enormous power within agriculture extended beyond individual farmers.
The United States Department of Justice itself raised competition concerns involving Monsanto. In connection with Monsanto’s $1.5 billion acquisition of Delta and Pine Land, the Justice Department required Monsanto and Delta and Pine Land to divest a significant seed company, cottonseed lines and other assets before allowing the transaction to proceed. The government stated that these measures were necessary to preserve competition for farmers. (Department of Justice)
This was important corroborating evidence. It demonstrated that concerns about Monsanto’s agricultural power were not confined to activists or corporate opponents. The federal government’s own antitrust authorities had identified competition issues serious enough to require intervention.
The Citizens for Justice evidence also examined Monsanto’s influence in Washington and the frequently criticized “revolving door” between the corporation and government regulatory positions. Such relationships do not, by themselves, prove corruption or a conspiracy. But when considered alongside Monsanto’s enormous economic interests in government decisions involving genetically engineered crops, pesticides, patents and agricultural regulation, they contributed to the jury’s concerns regarding corporate influence over government policy.
The strength of the case ultimately came from viewing the evidence collectively rather than as unrelated controversies.
A court had upheld findings involving misleading Roundup advertising. Farmer organizations documented an extensive campaign of investigations and litigation involving patented seeds. Federal antitrust authorities had intervened in Monsanto transactions because of competition concerns. And evidence raised serious questions regarding the extraordinary economic and political influence accumulated by the corporation.
Citizens for Justice also gave Monsanto an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present its side of the case. Monsanto did not provide a defense for inclusion in the proceeding.
After the evidence was presented, the jurors rendered an extraordinarily one-sided verdict:
GUILTY — 9,566 votes & NOT GUILTY — 11 votes
After duplicate votes were removed, Monsanto was declared GUILTY AS CHARGED.
The significance of that verdict was not that every accusation against Monsanto had previously been proven in a court of law. Rather, the Citizens for Justice jury considered the totality of the evidence and concluded that it demonstrated a broader pattern of deception, aggressive corporate conduct, environmental concerns, treatment of farmers, and the accumulation and exercise of extraordinary corporate power.
That evidence—not merely accusation—formed the foundation upon which the Citizens for Justice jury reached its verdict.
The Citizens for Justice proceeding and verdict described above are not judgments of a state or federal court. Readers should review the Citizens for Justice Disclaimer for additional information concerning the nature of these proceedings.