|
|
 
|
Supreme court to hear Schmeiser vs. Monsanto
by Paul Beingessner
(Monday, Jan. 5, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- On January 20, the eyes of the world will turn to an unlikely place, the
Supreme Court of Canada, as Percy Schmeiser has his day in court.
Schmeiser likely needs little introduction to farmers in western Canada.
The lawsuit brought against him by chemical giant Monsanto, alleging he
grew Roundup Ready canola without paying the associated fee to Monsanto,
made Schmeiser famous around the world. What distinguishes Schmeiser
from the many other farmers sued or threatened with lawsuits by Monsanto
is his dogged determination to carry on the fight, even after losing in
the lower courts.
On January 20, Schmeiser's appeal will be heard by the Supreme Court in
a hearing that is sure to garner the attention of farmers, governments,
activists and transnational companies around the world. Though many
farmers might not think it an important issue, they are wrong. What
happens in that courtroom will affect their lives for years to come.
A bit of a recap. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for growing Roundup Ready
canola without paying the $15 per acre fee Monsanto charges. Monsanto
has a patent on the gene that confers resistance to glyphosate
herbicides like Roundup and Monsanto claims that any canola plant
carrying that gene rightfully belongs to it.
Monsanto collected samples of Schmeiser's crop and found some of it
contained the Roundup Ready gene. However, in court, Monsanto gave up
trying to prove that Schmeiser had obtained the seed illegally. Rather,
Monsanto fell back on the argument that it did not matter how the seed
got there. It was theirs, and Schmeiser should have informed them about it.
Schmeiser maintained that his canola was contaminated with the Roundup
Ready variety by seed blowing off of trucks or by cross pollination with
neighboring canola Roundup Ready canola crops. Schmeiser gave evidence
to show he had not benefited by growing the canola as he did not spray
the crop with Roundup or try to sell it as seed.
The judge agreed with Monsanto that the crop belonged to it, no matter
how it got there, and awarded damages and costs to Monsanto.
Farmers fall into two camps regarding Schmeiser's case. For some it is
simple. Companies need to be able to patent plants and genes or there
will be no more research and farmers will be hurt by this.
Others find it more complex. They argue that it is a bit of a stretch
for a company to claim the right of ownership over a plant variety when
that variety is the product not just of the insertion of a gene, but of
thousands of years of breeding by farmers throughout history. Roundup
Ready corn, for example, utilizes the characteristics that were bred
into corn by farmers carefully selecting superior seeds for thousands of
years. They argue that corn, as with other major crops, is a heritage
that belongs to everyone - a collective gift from farmers of the past to
those of the present.
Supporters of Schmeiser also maintain that the right of farmers to save
their own seed is being taken away by patents on seeds and plants. They
fear that, with the concentration of ownership in the seed industry and
reductions in public funding for plant breeding, farmers will one day
have to pay for every seed they sow.
They also worry about "genetic pollution" - the escape of patented and
undesirable genes into the environment. Roundup Ready canola, for
example, has "leaked" into even the foundation seedstocks of some canola
varieties. This widespread contamination has made it impossible for
organic farmers to grow canola, as they can't guarantee it to be free
from genetically modified seed.
They also argue that no one should be able to patent a living creature,
whether plant or animal, since they do not qualify as "inventions".
Living creatures can reproduce on their own, and cannot be contained, a
fact supported by the spread of the Roundup Ready canola gene.
Schmeiser's supporters also point to the implications for farmers around
the world of an environment that allows a few transnational companies to
eventually own the world's genetic resources. They fear it will simply
be one more way for the developed world to extract wealth from poor
countries. There is some support for this. The United Nations
Development Program has published estimates suggesting that future
annual payments of patent fees and royalties from Third World countries
to private corporations based in the North may exceed their annual debt
payments already being transferred to the North.
They also dispute the notion that research will end if companies cannot
patent their varieties. Pulse crops in Saskatchewan show a different
model. The many new varieties available to growers were developed using
farmers' checkoff money. The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, which allocates
this funding, decided not to apply for protection for these varieties so
that farmers could freely save their own seed.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax
beingessner@sasktel.net | |
