|
|
 |
Crop contamination: The plight of today's non-GMO farmers
For thousands of years farmers have been growing and harvesting crops; sharing their seeds with neighbors for higher crop yields and better quality. In fact, a critical step in the farming cycle has always been to set aside seeds for next year’s planting; a right that has been practiced since the beginning of organized agriculture – until recently.
In the early 1970's, Monsanto (one of the largest chemical companies), had developed a weed-killing herbicide (glyphosate) which they marketed under the name, Round-Up – a product that became the bestselling herbicide worldwide. Years later, Monsanto began developing genetically modified (GM) crop seeds that were tolerant to Round-Up – this made it possible for farmers to spray their crops with Round-Up, killing all the weeds, and leaving the crop unaffected. This worked out lucratively for Monsanto because not only did they sell the Round Up herbicide, they were also selling their Round-Up Ready seeds they owned patents for. This meant that in order for farmers to have crops free from weeds and provide better yields, they were required to purchase both Round-Up and Round-Up Ready seeds from Monsanto every year.
In order to stay competitive in the market, more and more farmers were forced to contract with Monsanto – buying seeds and chemicals solely from them. On top of this, Monsanto charged an additional fee for use of their patented gene technology (an intellectual property fee), and stipulated that farmers were not allowed to save their seeds for future planting. Monsanto aggressively pursued farmers who tried to save seeds and sent scouts to investigate any breaches in contracts. Those farmers who were found to have saved seed were either sued or required to pay a hefty fine. As a direct result of this policy, many farmers have lost large amounts of money in court fines and have even lost their family farms in lawsuits.
To add further frustration to this situation, because genetically modified crops pollenate like any other, they have the potential to contaminate neighboring non-GMO crops. This means that under the patent laws, if GM seed is found in a neighboring non-GM crop, Monsanto owns the rights to that crop as well and has the authority to pursue litigation with the owner of the native crop. This was exactly what happened with Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser. In 1997. Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants were found growing near Schmeiser’s farm. He testified that he saved seeds from his crop and planted it the following year. Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using their patented technology. Schmeiser refused, claiming the seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.
A similar case was heard recently (February) by the U.S. Supreme Court – Monsanto vs Bowman – where ownership of 2nd and 3rd generation seeds was brought into question. If a farmer purchases the original seed from Monsanto, does Monsanto then have the right to own the seeds of subsequent crop generations? The court is expected to rule on this by the end of June 2013.
In the early 1970's, Monsanto (one of the largest chemical companies), had developed a weed-killing herbicide (glyphosate) which they marketed under the name, Round-Up – a product that became the bestselling herbicide worldwide. Years later, Monsanto began developing genetically modified (GM) crop seeds that were tolerant to Round-Up – this made it possible for farmers to spray their crops with Round-Up, killing all the weeds, and leaving the crop unaffected. This worked out lucratively for Monsanto because not only did they sell the Round Up herbicide, they were also selling their Round-Up Ready seeds they owned patents for. This meant that in order for farmers to have crops free from weeds and provide better yields, they were required to purchase both Round-Up and Round-Up Ready seeds from Monsanto every year.
In order to stay competitive in the market, more and more farmers were forced to contract with Monsanto – buying seeds and chemicals solely from them. On top of this, Monsanto charged an additional fee for use of their patented gene technology (an intellectual property fee), and stipulated that farmers were not allowed to save their seeds for future planting. Monsanto aggressively pursued farmers who tried to save seeds and sent scouts to investigate any breaches in contracts. Those farmers who were found to have saved seed were either sued or required to pay a hefty fine. As a direct result of this policy, many farmers have lost large amounts of money in court fines and have even lost their family farms in lawsuits.
To add further frustration to this situation, because genetically modified crops pollenate like any other, they have the potential to contaminate neighboring non-GMO crops. This means that under the patent laws, if GM seed is found in a neighboring non-GM crop, Monsanto owns the rights to that crop as well and has the authority to pursue litigation with the owner of the native crop. This was exactly what happened with Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser. In 1997. Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants were found growing near Schmeiser’s farm. He testified that he saved seeds from his crop and planted it the following year. Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using their patented technology. Schmeiser refused, claiming the seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.
A similar case was heard recently (February) by the U.S. Supreme Court – Monsanto vs Bowman – where ownership of 2nd and 3rd generation seeds was brought into question. If a farmer purchases the original seed from Monsanto, does Monsanto then have the right to own the seeds of subsequent crop generations? The court is expected to rule on this by the end of June 2013.
