|

GeneWatch
Volume 14 Number 4
July 2001
Human
Germline Engineering and Cloning as Women's Issues
By Marcy Darnovsky
Editorial: Choice in
the Biotechnology Age
By Suzanne Theberge
There
You Go Again, Monsanto!
Commentary by Martin Teitel
On Order
Commentary by Barbara Katz Rothman
Childbearing
in the Age of Biotechnology
By Ruth Hubbard
The Co-Opting of Women's
Choices
By Abby Lippman
The
Safe Seed Pledge: A Move Towards Food Protection
By Amber Beland
Interns Making A Difference
at CRG
Announcement: Adrienne
Asch Joins CRG Board
ABOUT GENEWATCH
GeneWatch
is Americas first and only magazine dedicated to monitoring
biotechnologys social, ethical and environmental consequences.
Since 1983, GeneWatch has covered a broad spectrum
of issues, from genetically engineered foods to biological
weapons, genetic privacy and discrimination, reproductive
technologies, and human cloning.
The centerpiece of the current
GeneWatch is Marcy
Darnovsky's analysis of new sex selection technologies.
We also present the first version of CRG's growing list of
security breaches and accidents at federal biodefense laboratories;
an update by Sujatha Byravan and Sheldon Krimsky of a planned
federal biodefense lab in Boston; Phil Bereano's much-needed
clarification of how international regulatory systems will
interact; and an overview of Chinese biotechnology by Nancy
Chen.
To find out more about subscribing
to GeneWatch and having it delivered to your doorstep six
times a year, just
click here.
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
/ ABOUT
/ SUBSCRIBE TO
GENEWATCH
There You Go Again, Monsanto
by Martin Teitel
Following on several years of well-publicized
debacles, from genetically engineered milk additives
to a plethora of useless and hazardous foods,
the new management at Monsanto has been working
to portray the biotech giant as a kinder and gentler
behemoth. Earlier this year, however, Monsanto
reverted to form in its dogged prosecution of
a fifth-generation Canadian farm family.
Septuagenarian Percy Schmeiser is a fifth-generation
Canadian farmer. At the end of March, a Canadian
judge ordered Schmeiser to pay Monsanto $85,000as
a penalty for growing Monsantos herbicide
resistant canola without the companys permission.
On top of the $200,000 he has already spent on
his court battle, the cost of the inevitable appeal,
and his counter suit against Monsanto, Schmeiser
is facing financial ruin.
The case revolves around Monsantos claim
of ownership of the genetically engineered seeds
that grew into the plants in Percy Schmeisers
Saskatchewan fields. No one disputed that trespassing
Monsanto Pinkertons found seeds from Monsantos
herbicide resistant canola (rapeseed) growing
in Schmeisers fields. And the judge ruled
that Schmeiser had not purchased nor stolen the
genetically engineered seeds, nor had he taken
advantage of the seeds herbicide resistant
traits. Essentially Monsanto was awarded payment
for its contamination of the farmers crops,
whether by dropped seeds or pollen drifting in
the wind. While no one knows exactly how the judge
arrived at his decision, presumably the mere presence
of genetic material that Monsanto claims to own
in some of Schmeisers plants was enough
to show that he was using something that didnt
belong to him.
This extraordinary finding by the Canadian judge
could have significant implications for our bio-commerce
future if higher courts uphold this ruling. It
is as if a judge held people who had been contaminated
by Monsantos PCBs liable for the cost of
the chemicals, or if a soft drink company tried
to charge for its product, having found an empty
container on a front lawn.
Beyond the outrageousness of the legal decision,
there is a deeper message here, one that perhaps
helps us to understand why Monsanto has been willing
to show its fangs at a time when it is laboring
to clean up its image. The 1.4 billion small farmers
in the worlds poorest countries rely on
seed saving for their lives and livelihoods. Agribusiness
companies and trade reps from the US and other
northern countries have long wanted to find ways
to jostle subsistence farmers off their delicate
balance of self-sufficiency, in order to create
a dependence on imported seeds, fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, petroleum products to pump water,
and other accoutrements of modern
agriculture.
This concerted effort to create dependency, which
the outside experts describe in terms
of increasing crop yield, alleviating starvation
and harmonizing laws, has been tried
before. The Green Revolution managed to increase
both crop yields and starvation by pushing high-input
hybrid monocultures. At its core was an effort
to get farmers out of the traditional barter and
subsistence system into mainstream commerce and
the international agricultural commodities trade.
The new push for biotech crops in the third world
follows a very similar pattern. It attempts to
disrupt traditional means of obtaining food in
favor of creating dependencies on imported seeds
and chemicals. Central in this scheme is the enforcement
of prohibitions on seed saving, the fundamental
threat to agricultural bio-colonialism.
This larger struggle for global agricultural hegemony
might well be the underlying motive behind Monsantos
suit against Schmeiser, and the scores of similar
actions still in court. While the immediate victim
of this unjust decision is a gentle farmer from
Canada, the real target might well be far poorer
and vulnerable small farmers in Zimbabwe, Colombia,
and other countries around the third world.
Contributions to help Percy Schmeiser can be sent
to:
Schmeiser Defense Fund
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
603 Main Street
Humbolt, Saskatchewan
Canada S0K 2AO
|
|