Posted on 01/15/2005 4:26:45 PM PST by Brilliant
SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan McFarling in 1999, and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy. McFarling's sin? He saved seed from one harvest and replanted it the following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice.
"My daddy saved seed. I saved seed," said McFarling, 62, who still grows soy on the 5,000 acre family farm in Shannon, Miss. and is fighting the agribusiness giant in court.
Saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company's contracts with farmers.
Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times in 25 states against 147 farmers and 39 agriculture companies, according to a report issued Thursday by The Center for Food Safety, a biotechnology foe.
In a similar case a year ago, Tennessee farmer Kem Ralph was sued by Monsanto and sentenced to eight months in prison after he was caught lying about a truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.
Ralph's prison term is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked to Monsanto's crackdown. Ralph has also been ordered to pay Monsanto more than $1.7 million.
The company itself says it annually investigates about 500 "tips" that farmers are illegally using its seeds and settles many of those cases before a lawsuit is filed.
In this way, Monsanto is attempting to protect its business from pirates in much the same way the entertainment industry does when it sues underground digital distributors exploiting music, movies and video games.
In the process, it has turned farmer on farmer and sent private investigators into small towns to ask prying questions of friends and business acquaintances.
Monsanto's licensing contracts and litigation tactics are coming under increased scrutiny as more of the planet's farmland comes under genetically engineered cultivation.
Some 200 million acres of the world's farms grew biotech crops last year, an increase of 20 percent from 2003, according to a separate report released Wednesday.
Many of the farmers Monsanto has sued say, as McFarling claims, that they didn't read the company's technology agreement close enough. Others say they never received an agreement in the first place.
The company counters that it sues only the most egregious violations and is protecting the 300,000 law-abiding U.S. farmers who annually pay a premium for its technology. Soy farmers, for instance, pay a "technology fee" of about $6.50 an acre each year.
Some 85 percent of the nation's soy crop is genetically engineered to resist Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, a trait many farmers say makes it easier to weed their fields and ultimately cheaper to grow their crops.
"It's a very efficient and cost-effective way to raise soy beans and that's why the market has embraced it," said Ron Heck, who grows 900 acres of genetically engineered soy beans in Perry, Iowa.
Heck, who is also chairman of the American Soybean Association, said he doesn't mind buying new seed each year and appreciates Monsanto's crackdown on competitors who don't pay for their seed.
"You can save seed if you want to use the old technology," Heck said.
The company said the licensing agreement protects its more than 600 biotech-related patents and ensures a return on its research and development expenses, which amount to more than $400 million annually.
"We have to balance our obligations and our responsibilities to our customers, to our employees and to our shareholders," said Scott Baucum, Monsanto's chief intellectual property protector.
Still, Monsanto's investigative tactics are sewing seeds of fear and mistrust in some farming communities, company critics say.
Monsanto encourages farmers to call a company hot line with piracy tips, and private investigators in its employ act on leads with visits to the associates of suspect farmers.
Baucum acknowledged that the company walks a fine line when it sues farmers.
"It is very uncomfortable for us," Baucum said. "They are our customers and they are important to us."
The Center for Food Safety established its own hot line Thursday where farmers getting sued can receive aid. It also said it hopes to convene a meeting among defense lawyers to develop legal strategies to fight Monsanto.
The company said it has gone to trial five times and has never lost a legal fight against an accused pirate. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) in 1980 allowed for the patenting of genetically engineered life forms and extended the same protections to altered plants in 2001. Earlier this year, a Washington D.C. federal appeals court specifically upheld Monsanto's license.
"It's sad. It's sickening. I'm disillusioned," said Rodney Nelson, a North Dakota farmer who settled a Monsanto suit in 2001 that he said was unfairly filed. "We have a heck of an uphill battle that I don't think can be won."
So if the busy little bees and the wind pollinates your field from a Monsanto planted field and you save your seed, can Monsanto sue you and have you thrown into jail even though you never bought any of their seed in the first place? It's happened in Canada.
I sympathise with the farmers, but if not saving seed was a condition of purchase they are stuck. MOnsanto has to make a return on its research or there won't be any new drought or insect resistant strains developed.
I saw a sign on a plant in a nursery saying it was proprietary and propogation without permission was prohibited.
It was at that point I immediately gave up my former belief in the need to protect intellectual property. This has hit Roman candle proportions of insanity.
It's not insanity. ADM/Monsato have *EVIL* intentions.
You have to think a few steps further to understand the long-term ramifications.
To late. Percy Schmier has already lost his case and has also lost his appeal to the Canadain Supreme Court.
Thanks for the ping!
Well, I'd agree they have a legal case. The question I have is whether it's good policy to sue your customers like this. It's certainly not good PR.
But that is their decision, I guess.
"I have heard of the development of hybrids which will not reproduce. The customer must purchase next years' seed anyway." (For everyone's info, LaBette.)
As a self-proclaimed expert in this field, (I was in the Heirloom Seed Biz for seven years) you are quite correct. Monsanto modifies seed for a few reasons:
1. GMO's (genetically modified seed) behave in a certain way, produce more per acre and are resistant to standard diseases. An example is their Round-Up Ready soybeans (which this bru-ha-ha is probably all about) because the plants are not effected by the chemical Round-Up, so you can spray the field to get rid of all the weeds, and not effect your crop. They put millions of dollars into R&D, so of course they want to protect their investment.
2. Any seed that is a GMO or hybrid will not reproduce true the second year; you'll get some genetic mutation from either the male or female side. This is also true when you're planting pure or heirloom seed in your garden as well. If plants are not spaced properly, or you don't use germination cages, things cross. Mother Nature is not picky. She just wants to spread her DNA around as much as possible. In reality, many of the "heirloom" tomato plants you see for sale in the spring were once "accidents of nature," but someone has been able to isolate the seed at a certain point for the great characteristics of that particular tomato and continues to keep those characteristics as they are. (Flavor, disesase resistance, great production, a certain color or stripe, few seeds, an interesting leaf, etc.)
3. It all comes down to money, and while I'd like to always side with the farmer, this guy is violating his agreement with the company, and something should be done about it. FIL grows corn and soybean, so I know the ins and outs of growing crops on a large scale, though we just do about 200 acres, versus the 5,000 this farmer does. (He is NOT a small-scale farmer by any means.) If we saved corn or soybean seed from year to year, we'd be out of business within one cycle, because what we'd be growing would be some mutant freak. I don't know how this farmer is making money off of saving GMO seed? That don't make no sense. ;)
4. Controlling the food supply? Well, in a sense, but America produces enough food to feed the world each year, (unfortunately we have unscrupulous people and dirty foreign governments in charge of distributing that food; hence the continuation of World Hunger) so they're doing something right. If you want to take a stand, learn to grow your own or join a local Community Supported Ag farm, shop at your weekend Farmer's Markets, etc. That's what I do. Home gardening is a multi-billion dollar business now. Most people still can't feed themselves, but a lot more are trying. :)
And Monsanto is not the only seed company doing this. All of them do, to some extent. They're just the biggest.
Arrrrrrr, Matey, I'll have ye plow the back forty and feed the cows, I will! Arrrrrrrrrr......
In a way it is GOOD PR. All the farmers who ARE following the rules aren't crying in their beer over this case.
Ignoring the rules give the violator an unfair financial advantage. So going ofter the perps, is, in a way, good PR.
Thanks for the info. This reminds me of a neighbor who ran out of his favorite Dekalb milo variety{a few years back},with only a dozen or so acres left to plant. His dealer is also sold out, so he fills the planter with whatever variety is in his grain bin. The result? Yeild compares similarly with hybrid from dealer. He saves enough of this seed to replant the same plot again. You guessed it. The next generation of plants displayed "the fullness of their breeding". The plants were all of different height and maturity, and there were red, yellow, and bronze heads. It was a sight to behold.
Possibly. It's their call, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.