Small Canadian Farmer Fights Monsanto

AP ^ | 1/19/2004 | paul elias

[jonatron]

OTTAWA -- The case of a small-time farmer from the remote Saskatchewan plains, now before Canada's highest court, may represent the best chance yet for foes of the global biotech revolution to get the law on their side.

Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. sued the farmer, Percy Schmeiser, after its agents found biotech canola growing in his fields in 1997. It contends he replanted seeds from those plants without paying a technology fee of about $12 an acre.

[jonatron]

For educational purposes only

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[baltodog]

Here is the deal: A seed is a seed. Period.

If you don't wish to share it, take measures to prevent others from getting it.

If my neighbor were to spend $10,000 on decorative plants, and per chance, by the causes of nature, several of those plants were to bloom on my side of the fence the next season, would he be able to sue me?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

---

If this is taxes with reprsentation
Give me taxes without representation
I much prefer a tax on tea!
Instead of everything else.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If my neighbor were to spend $10,000 on decorative plants, and per chance, by the causes of nature, several of those plants were to bloom on my side of the fence the next season, would he be able to sue me?

You probably don't realize it, but this is the same issue as downloading music on the Internet.

In the case of the Internet, the music is classified as copyrighted intellectual property, and you are expected to purchase it through proper channels so that the copyright owner can be compensated, rather than reproduce the files yourself.

In the biotech case, genes have been inserted into one of the canola chromosomes and the resulting DNA patented. Just as in the case of music files, you can easily make copies of this DNA yourself by planting the seeds, harvesting the resulting crop and planting those seeds.

If you are against music file sharing (some call it piracy) then you should be on Monsanto's side.

Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about file sharing on the Internet?

I am not attacking you, this is purely a pleasant philosophical discussion.

[tristam]

Just to jump in here, I think this is somewhat different than file sharing (which I am ambivelant about.) If in fact this guy was given such seeds of a second generation plant from a neighbor and planted them and profited thereby, than perhaps I would agree that the Monsanto case does have merit.
However, if in the past he had purchased such seeds from Monsanto in the past and saved some seed from the original plants, then as far as I can tell Monsanto should be told to go and pound sand. They have already made their profit on the sale of the actual physical seed they produced. This farmer is only doing what farmers have done since time immemorial.
That said, it occurs to me that the case may be made that taking a CUTTING (for profit)from a patented plant might be prosecuted though, since it is in essence a clone. If not done for profit though, I can't see the case being made.
I mention this last bit because I have noticed that MANY of the flowers and bushes I have planted in my garden the last few years (particularly roses) have such a warning on them.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[teeman8r]

if monsanto wanted to corner the market on its plant, they should have developed a seedless variety... next generation farming from seeds of the first generation is standard operating procedure, trying to charge for poor foresight in marketing one's product is poor business practice on monsanto's part...

but the court will side with monsanto probably... and screw the little guy...

teeman

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. sued the farmer, Percy Schmeiser, after its agents found biotech canola growing in his fields in 1997. It contends he replanted seeds from those plants without paying a
technology fee of about $12 an acre.
===============================

Guys, THIS is why so many investors are so keen on "Biotech" crop companies.

And, why governments have "partnered" with the gargantuan "global" corporations that "patented" the seeds. It puts the very lives of the world's peoples under the "thumbs" of the government CONTROLLED corporations. And, in the hands of a "select" few. CONTROL!!!!

And, it IS possible that the "species" migrated onto the farmer's property. After all, it is a "superior" seed designed to "withstand", whereas the farmer's seed is not.Peace and love, George.

[rusty millet]

Proprietary rights to germplasm are essential.

The cost of developing a new variety is quite high.
By conventional means, it can take up to 10 years to introduce a new variety, and then incorporating various biotech traits adds to the cost.

Variety development will occur by either private industry or taxpayer-subsidized public institutions (Universities or the USDA-ARS).

Private industries exist to make a profit. They are not charities. If the industries cannot make a profit, they have no reason to exist. If others attempt to steal the means by which they make a profit, then they must suffer the consequences.


The practice of "brown bagging" (saving some seeds from this year's harvest to plant next year) is widespread. Crops grown as hybrids (such as corn) are mostly protected from the practice by inherently lower yield that occurs in in subsequent generations through inbreeding depression. Many companies that formerly developed self-fertilizing crops (wheat and soybeans) have gotten out of the game since brown bagging limits new sales, and it is not possible to recoup the investment in developing those new varieties.

So - Allow industry to make a profit on their research investment, or stop investment in new research that in the long run can make American growers more productive.

Which do you choose?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What the guy did was select for the genetically modified variety by culling his seed crop from the previous year's harvest.

He is now planting seed from his previous crops that is 100% genetically modified with Monsanto's gene.

There was no accident here. It was deliberate.

There is no legal difference between making copies of somebody's patented DNA and making copies of somebody's copyrighted music.

If you think there is, then your are based on emotion (and perhaps greed, if you are a farmer) rather than logic.

Don't get me wrong here. I think the intellectual property laws have been bastardized far beyond anything ever envisioned. Copyright was extended to almost a hundred years a couple of years ago because Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain.

If you think Monsanto is in the wrong, then logically you should think that the RIAA is in the wrong.

[editor-surveyor]

"You probably don't realize it, but this is the same issue as downloading music on the Internet."

No, this really is not the same issue. It is the nature of some plants to reproduce by seed. ownership of a plant includes ownership of all of the parts of the plant, and in the case of a seed crop, especially the seed. As long as the farmer is not reselling his seed to others for the purpose of growing crops, then he has done no wrong.

Should the buyers of those seeds choose to plant some of them, that is their business, and Monsanto has no moral, or legitimate claim against them, as long as they are not using a process other than the natural, unmodified reproduction of the plant. (i.e. not duplicating Monsanto's original gene-splicing process)

[FreeInWV]

I'm not sure it was entirely deliberate. If the farmer could prove that he had been saving his best seed for many years and replanting it, it is likely he has done nothing wrong. It is entirely possible that a portion of his corn was cross-pollinated by a prolific strain of monsanto pollen. It need only be a few percent of the corn. Upon harvest, if that cross-pollinated corn looked the best, he would have saved it for next year's seed. In another years time, all of it could have been cross-pollinated. Monsanto quite possibly could have destroyed "his" improved strain because their strain is so prolific. Essentially, they have recklessly introduced an invasive species. Corn seed is only good for a year or 2. His strain is completely gone now.

Another topic that impacts this is whether the farmer ever bought Monsanto seed and whether he signed the planting contract required by Monsanto. If he ever has, he is in the wrong. This contract would be legally binding on him, requiring him not to save seeds from year to year. If he never planted their seed, nor signed their contract, they may have little claim on him.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As long as the farmer is not reselling his seed to others for the purpose of growing crops, then he has done no wrong.

By that logic, as long as music file downloaders are not reselling the songs they download, then they have done no wrong.

Whether you like it or not, Monsanto has a PATENT on a specific gene that they have inserted into the canola DNA. This gene makes the canola plant immune to the herbicide Roundup, so that a farmer can plant his crop right along with the Roundup and save tremendous amounts of tilling time and tractor fuel.

DNA is a sequence of nucleotides that contains information for coding proteins, much as an MP3 file contains information for coding sound waves.

Monsanto LEGALLY owns the Roundup-resistant DNA, and expects to be compensated for it.

What the guy did was select for the genetically modified variety by culling his seed crop from the previous year's harvest.

He is now planting seed from his previous crops that is 100% genetically modified with Monsanto's gene.

There was no accident here. It was deliberate.

There is no legal difference between making copies of somebody's patented DNA and making copies of somebody's copyrighted music.

If you think there is, then your are based on emotion (and perhaps greed, if you are a farmer) rather than logic.

Don't get me wrong here. I think the intellectual property laws have been bastardized far beyond anything ever envisioned. Copyright was extended to almost a hundred years a couple of years ago because Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain.

If you think Monsanto is in the wrong, then logically you should think that the RIAA is in the wrong.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I'm not sure it was entirely deliberate.

100% of the canola seeds the guy is planting contain the Roundup-resistant gene PATENTED by Monsanto, and you are not sure that it was entirely deliberate.

Were you on the OJ Simpson jury by any chance?

[FreeInWV]

Were you on the OJ Simpson jury by any chance?

No, I just have more farming & gardening experience than you. I have saved tomato and pepper seeds, only to have their strain destroyed by somebody elses plants.

You seem to suggest that the farmer had some kind of special x-ray vision, where he could look at corn stalks and immediately identify gene sequences. He then used this knowledge in an evil plot to acquire Monsanto's guarded secrets. Is that right? Gee with magic powers like that, I wonder why he is a lowly farmer instead of a high paid genetic scientist?

I have another way to see who is telling the truth. Call the supply stores near to his house and see if he bought a couple thousand gallons of Roundup. If he did then he is guilty, since no farmer would spray that stuff on normal corn. It would kill it. If he didn't then he is not guilty, since no farmer would fight weeds when they know they have Roundup-Ready corn and could simply spray it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If he did then he is guilty, since no farmer would spray that stuff on normal corn.

He does use Roundup and no-till methods.

That's the entire point.

[FreeInWV]

Then he's guilty. He knowingly did it. Now its up to the courts to determine what laws he can be prosecuted under.

It will still need to be determined whether he planted commercial seed and saved that years seeds or whether it was wind propagated. Also whether he sprayed a stand of corn to ensure that only the resistant variety remained. If he sold any seed, he may be liable for quite a bit to Monsanto. Whether he ever signed a growers contract as well as intricate copyright law will also figure into any decision. However, when it comes to the legal system nothing is cut and dried.

[editor-surveyor]

"There is no legal difference between making copies of somebody's patented DNA and making copies of somebody's copyrighted music."

Nonsense! - The farmer didn't make any copies; the plants that grew from the seed that Monsanto sold to the farmer (for the specific purpose of growing rapeseed for oil extraction) made the copies, as they were designed to do by monsanto.

This is vastly different than music recordings; music will not replicate itself; it requires intervention with a machine, and technology specifically designed to violate a copyright.

[Squawk 8888]

You forgot one vital point- when a farmer buys those seeds in the first place, he signs a contract in which he agrees no to plant subsequent generations.