Support Grows for Maine Dairy Sued by Monsanto

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

Support Grows for Maine Dairy Sued by Monsanto

Thursday, August 14, 2003 by the Portland Press Herald

 

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghfidyl/monsanto_sues.cfm

 

(Maine) Nader Enters Ring in Oakhurst Corner by Paul Livingstone and

Matt Wickenheiser

 

Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate for president in the last

election, has thrown his support behind Oakhurst Dairy as the

Portland company fights to keep labels that say its milk comes from

farms that don't use artificial growth hormones.

 

Nader contacted Oakhurst recently to offer free legal help, through

his foundation that supports freedom of speech, because he says the

small Maine dairy is outgunned financially by Monsanto Co., the

chemical firm that had more than $4 billion in sales last year.

 

" Oakhurst's label is completely untouchable. It's free speech, " the

consumer advocate said during a phone interview Wednesday. " What

Monsanto is doing is engaging in frivolous harassing litigation. "

 

Monsanto has " made a serious tactical mistake " by suing Oakhurst, he

said. " I think they're beatable in the court of law and the court of

public opinion. "

 

Also Wednesday, the dairy asked that the case be moved from the

federal court in Boston to the one in Portland. In the filing,

Oakhurst argued that the case would be of importance to the state of

Maine's regulation of its milk industry, that the outcome could

determine the enforceability of state law, and as such belongs in

Maine.

 

Monsanto officials did not return phone calls seeking comment. The

company has argued in court filings and previous public statements

that Oakhurst labels harm Monsanto because they are misleading. The

labels, Monsanto says, inaccurately suggest that there's something

wrong with milk if it comes from cows that have been injected with

the growth hormone it manufactures.

 

Since news of the lawsuit came out, Oakhurst has been deluged with

support.

 

Several dozen people who have heard about the court case have sent

Oakhurst checks to support its legal defense, which the dairy has

returned. Groups from Waldo County to California have organized

petition drives. Several hundred people have sent letters and e-

mails of support to the company and newspapers. The dairy's milk

sales have increased - though Oakhurst is not sure that the legal

dispute is driving consumers.

 

The frenzied response has Stanley Bennett II, Oakhurst's president,

fielding dozens of calls a day from supportive dairy farmers,

biotechnology opponents and consumers. Bennett recently was

interviewed by a French-language television station from Montreal.

Reporters from other countries have been calling and visiting.

 

" I'm terribly inundated with requests for information about the

lawsuit, " Bennett said. " I should really be running the business. "

 

Among those organizing support is Jennie Judge, a morning show host

with WEBB (98.5-FM), an Augusta country music station. She organized

a poster-signing campaign in support of Oakhurst.

 

" The response was tremendous. People ate it up, " she said. " We

brought the poster to our Music in the Park day, and we must have

had close to 500 signatures on it.

 

" Monsanto saw what Oakhurst was doing and said, 'Oops, we gotta nip

this in the bud.' We're saying, 'Not so fast,' " Judge said.

 

Bennett called all the support " heartwarming " and said it has helped

solidify his conviction to engage in what is likely to be an

expensive fight with Monsanto.

 

" It's our right and obligation, as I see it, to keep people informed

as to what is and what isn't used in the production of the foods

they consume, " said Bennett. " All of the responses are supporting

our position and suggesting we fight the good fight and don't buckle

under. "

 

Meanwhile, in a motion filed Wednesday, Bennett's lawyers argued

that the case belongs in Portland rather than in Boston because only

7 percent of Oakhurst's sales occur in Massachusetts and just 1.5

percent of its marketing dollars are spent there.

 

And the case centers entirely on the dairy's advertising practices -

namely its use of the slogan " Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial

Growth Hormones. "

 

Monsanto, which is based in Missouri, argues that no scientific

evidence exists to prove milk from cows treated with the hormones

differs from milk of untreated cows. It also argues that the slogan

confuses consumers into staying away from milk from those cows.

 

In its filing, Oakhurst noted that the state-sanctioned Maine

Quality Trademark is given to milk from cows not treated with

artificial growth hormones. If the court decided that the no-

artificial-hormone claim is fidyl illegal, then the Maine Trademark

could be impacted, the motion suggested.

 

The state hasn't taken an active part in the lawsuit, said Charles

Dow, spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. " It's possible

that Maine or another state or states could do that, but at this

point that's not happened, " Dow said.

 

Another reason for moving the case to Maine is that it would be more

convenient for Oakhurst and its witnesses, and no less convenient

for Monsanto.

 

" Unlike Monsanto, Oakhurst is a relatively small and busy family-

owned dairy that can ill afford the sacrifice of time, resources and

employees that litigation in Boston and round-trip travel from Maine

would entail, " the motion stated. " By comparison, as a Missouri-

based company with offices all over the United States and the world,

Monsanto should have no difficulty pursuing its actions in . . .

Portland, Maine, which has an international jetport conveniently

located within the city.

 

" With annual gross income approaching $5 billion, Monsanto is in

better position to bear any additional expense that it might

arguably incur in litigating its action in Maine instead of

Massachusetts. "

 

Additionally, said Oakhurst, the dairy will need to call as

witnesses state officials who are beyond the subpoena power of the

U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. That wouldn't be an issue if

the case were moved to Maine, the motion argued.