Fwd: Major Victory for Biotech Giant Monsanto

>X-Sender: brook@global.california.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
>Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:55:24 -0800
>Reply-To: International forum for discussion and information on social
>              movements <SOCIAL-MOVEMENTS@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE>
>Sender: International forum for discussion and information on social
>              movements <SOCIAL-MOVEMENTS@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE>
>From: CyberBrook <Brook@CALIFORNIA.COM>
>Subject:      Major Victory for Biotech Giant Monsanto
>Comments: To: flatta@ceb.ucop.edu
>To: SOCIAL-MOVEMENTS@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
>
>This is outrageous and alarming, reminding me why Monsanto should be the
>continuous target of environmental, consumer, and farmer social movements...
>
>Published on Friday, March 30, 2001 in the Washington Post
>
>Major Victory for Biotech Giant Monsanto
>Farmer Liable For Growing Biotech Crops
>                  by Marc Kaufman
>
>A judge yesterday ordered a Canadian farmer to pay the biotechnology giant
>Monsanto Co.
>thousands of dollars because the company's genetically engineered canola
>plants were
>found growing on his field, apparently after pollen from modified plants
>had blown onto his
>property from nearby farms.
>
>The closely watched case was a major victory for companies that produce
>genetically
>modified crops and have been aggressively enforcing agreements that require
>farmers to pay
>yearly fees for using their technology.
>
>But the decision in a federal court in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
>was a significant setback for farmers who fear they will be held
>liable if pollen from neighboring farms blows onto their fields,
>transmitting patented genes to their crops without their
>knowledge or consent. Dozens of similar lawsuits have been filed
>against farmers around the United States, but the Canadian case
>is the first to go to trial.
>
>The case also highlights growing tension between farmers and
>large agricultural biotechnology companies, whose high-tech
>crops are transforming the traditional ways growers tend their
>fields.
>
>"I've been using my own seed for years, and now farmers like me
>are being told we can't do that anymore if our neighbors are
>growing [genetically modified] crops that blow in," said Percy
>Schmeiser, 70, the farmer from Saskatchewan who was sued by Monsanto.
>"Basically, the
>right to use our own seed has been taken away."
>
>Genetically engineered corn, soybeans, cotton and canola have become widely
>used in the
>United States, and recent evidence suggests that their pollen can spread to
>conventional
>crops. That means any farmer whose neighbors grow engineered varieties
>could find himself
>in the same situation as Schmeiser -- especially farmers of easily
>windblown canola and corn.
>
>A Monsanto spokeswoman in Winnipeg, Manitoba, said yesterday that the
>decision will
>help protect the intellectual property rights of the company and of
>thousands of farmers who
>pay for its technology.
>
>"This is a clear win for Monsanto, and this is very good news for us," said
>Trish Jordan,
>manager of public and industry affairs for Monsanto Canada. "What the judge
>found was
>that Mr. Schmeiser had infringed on our patent, and awarded us damages."
>
>In his ruling, federal Judge W. Andrew MacKay concluded that a farmer does
>not have the
>right to grow crops with a patented and genetically modified gene unless he
>has an
>agreement with the company that owns the patent. MacKay also ruled that it
>didn't matter
>whether the farmer took advantage of the patented gene. In this case,
>Schmeiser did not.
>
>The Monsanto canola contains a gene that protects the crop from the
>herbicide Roundup.
>With Roundup Ready canola, farmers can spray the herbicide more widely and
>control
>weeds more easily.
>
>Seed companies representing Monsanto, and similar biotechnology companies,
>sell their
>modified genes to farmers under an agreement that they use them for only
>one season.
>Traditionally, farmers have stored their best seeds and replanted them.
>
>Monsanto communications director Lori Fisher said yesterday that seed
>companies that
>license Monsanto technology will help farmers remove unwanted genetically
>modified plants
>in their fields. She called the Schmeiser case unusual and said that
>farmers support the
>company's effort to protect its patent.
>
>But a spokeswoman with the National Farmers Union, which represents 300,000
>small
>farmers and ranchers in the United States, said the organization has been
>following the
>Schmeiser case with apprehension.
>
>"We're extremely concerned by what liabilities may unfold for the farmer,
>particularly with
>  cross-pollination of genetically modified plants," she said.
>
>Margaret Mellon, director of the agriculture and biotechnology program of
>the Union of
>Concerned Scientists, called the ruling "stunning.
>
>"This means that people who are in the neighborhood of genetically modified
>crops will have
>  to pay royalties to the companies for products they never purchased and
>got no benefits
>  from," she said.
>
>The decision prohibits Schmeiser from using his seed again and requires him
>to pay
>Monsanto about $10,000 for its user fees and up to $75,000 in profits from
>his 1998 crop.
>MacKay told the farmer and company that he would impose a financial
>settlement if they
>couldn't work one out.
>
>Schmeiser is a fifth-generation farmer in Bruno, Saskatchewan. In his trial
>last summer, he
>acknowledged he was aware that Roundup Ready canola had gotten into his
>crops in 1997.
>He said he used seeds from that crop for his next year's planting -- as he
>traditionally did --
>but with no intention of taking advantage of the genetically modified
>plants' engineered trait.
>
>Representatives of Monsanto Canada received reports from nearby farmers in
>1998 that they
>believed Schmeiser was using Roundup Ready canola without an agreement.
Private
>investigators collected samples from Schmeiser's fields and confirmed the
>presence of the
>modified canola.
>
>They reported that the crop was made up almost entirely of genetically
>modified plants.
>Schmeiser denied that, and third-party tests found the presence of modified
>canola to be
>significantly less. He became something of a hero in farmer and
>anti-biotech circles for his
>fight against the company.