From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 02:18:42 MDT
Extropes,
For many, this brings to mind the "luddite rejection"
issue. However, I have stumbled across a separate
GM-crop issue, a legal problem--gene patent law legal
problem--which might reasonable 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?
Best, Jeff Davis
"Life doesn't have to survive --
its the *code* that counts."
Robert J. Bradbury
--- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Quorum of 50 countries vote to allow rejection of GM
> foods without proof they pose any danger.
>
> ------------
> UN food treaty on GM food regulation to get
> effective soon
>
>
http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=3637&fmbs"
> Site=AO545
>
> "The United States and the European Union have been
> in a
> dispute over genetically modified products, and the
> disagreement has stalled the current round of WTO
> trade
> talks.
>
> 16/06/2003 A United Nations treaty regulating the
> trade
> of genetically modified products will soon go into
> effect,
> after gaining the approval of a 50th U.N. member.
>
> The Pacific nation Palau ratified the controversial
> treaty,
> known as the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety,
> Friday.
> Fifty nations needed to adopt the pact before it
> will turn
> into law, 90 days from now.
>
> The U.N. Environment Program said Saturday that
> Palau`s
> move will help make use of genetically-modified
> products
> safer by allowing countries to reject them without
> proof
> they pose any danger.
>
> But the agreement goes against current World Trade
> Organization (WTO) rules that require countries to
> have
> scientific proof of a risk to refuse entry of these
> products.
> The Associated Press reports none of the major grain
> producing countries has ratified the protocol,
> including
> the United States.
>
> The United States and the European Union have been
> in a dispute over genetically modified products, and
> the
> disagreement has stalled the current round of WTO
> trade talks.
>
> Genetically modified foods have had their genes
> changed,
> usually to make them more resistant to disease or to
> produce in greater quantities. Proponents say they
> pose
> no risk and could work to alleviate poverty. Critics
> argue
> the genetic mutations could pose health hazards and
> cause havoc in the environment.
> --------
>
> - Brett Paatsch
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 02:28:25 MDT