From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 13:11:31 MDT
Jeff Davis wrote:
> For many, this brings to mind the "luddite rejection"
> issue.
http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=3637&f1828
Site=AO545
> However, I have stumbled across a separate
> GM-crop issue, a legal problem--gene patent law legal
> problem--which might reasonably be seen by any
> county's leadership as grounds for signing on to the
> treaty in question so as to preserve the freedom of
> action which is the treaty's central feature.
> Consequently, folks wanting to promote the value
> offered by GM crops will need to consider the problem
> and how it might be corrected.
>
> Perhaps you've heard of this. In 1997, a Canadian
> farmer, with long years of growing canola, found
> Round-Up (tm) resistant canola growing in one of his
> fields, the result of the wind borne spread of pollen
> from the nearby fields of other growers. He was an
> alert and knowledgeable farmer and knew it was
> genetically modified and how it got into his seed
> stock, and subsequently into his crop--he would sell
> his crop, but hold back seed for planting next year's
> crop. He selectively saved the seed from the Round-Up
> resistant plants and planted them, mixed with others,
> for his 1998 crop.
>
> Monsanto, the patent holders on the gene conferring
> Round-Up resistance, sued the farmer for patent
> infringement, and won, and won on appeal, and now the
> farmer is counter-suing.
>
> Here's a couple of links to the story:
>
> The whole shebang
> http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
>
> and the appeals court decision
> http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/2002fca309.html
>
> I've spent the last hour or so reading parts of the
> Appeals Court Decision and thinking it over, but
> haven't gotten to the counter suit. I've been
> guessing thought about what approach the counter suit
> might take.
>
> It isn't over till it's over, but at this juncture, it
> looks like the patent holder can broadcast his
> pollen/gene, and then bill the owner of any plant so
> pollinated--unwilling or no--for any possession or use
> of any plant tissue containing the gene.
>
> So here's a case where the uncontrolled release of the
> gene, a predictable consequence of commercial-scale
> canola agriculture, poses a threat those farmers
> previously uninvolved, unaffected, and independent.
>
> To put in the words of the article below:
> " ...genetic mutations could ...cause havoc..."
>
> At least havoc in the 'commercial environment'.
>
> Grounds for the treaty, or no?
I don't think this one case is grounds for either supporting
or opposing the UN treaty on GM foods.
I think there are two separate issues involved, GMOs, and
IP law review, both of which involve technologies that raise
legitimate questions of social policy and that are attracting a
large amount of interest internationally. Yet on both issues
there is substantially more noise, misrepresentation and
public comment about than constructive debate and informed
consideration.
Add the ongoing battle about trade barriers relating to imports
and protections on food and you get a third dimension that
seems to be substantially based on finding reasons not to go
along with free market economics in the area of food. The
GM issue can be convenient for making a special case. A
case which is likely to resonate with some national farm
lobbies pre-existing biases.
Canada, where the case to which you refer occurred, does
not enforce an identical set of IP laws to the US. From
memory The Harvard Oncomouse for instance was not
granted a patent in Canada.
The string of articles in your first link contains phrases
like "David and Goliath battle" and "the controversial
alchemy of genetic engineering, which has alarmed
environmentalists and consumers". Makes for good
copy but poor information to a public lacking it.
I recall at one stage outrage about Monsanto
producing a crop that was infertile in the second
generation and the flak they copped being called
MonSatan etc because the story got around that
they were looking to monopolise the worlds food
supply. It was also possible that the GE they did
was designed to stop the cross pollination and spreading
of their crop into the wild. So it could be that they
were trying to respond to one commonly held community
concern and ran head long into another. Or it could
be the truth was somewhere in the middle.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 13:20:21 MDT