If there was ever a question in your mind that Genetic Engineering was as much a freedom issue as it is an environmental / health issue this should confirm it for you. Please pass this on.
“Clyde Cleveland” GM & Corporate Serfdom
We are witnessing the most outrageous acts of corporate theft and
domination in history. At its heart is the manipulation of life-forms
and the use of this technology to gain control over the food chain.
Nick Papadimitriou charts the recent antics of Monsanto.
Giant agbiotech companies such as Monsanto are aggressively imposing a
new form of serfdom on North American farming practices. By patenting both
naturally occurring gene sequences and genetically modified forms of life,
Monsanto can use aggressive lawsuits to ward off any potential rival.
At the same time, insidious forms of surveillance and barely concealed
threats are whittling away any options farmers have for getting seeds
from other suppliers.
In April, Monsanto secured a “torpedo” patent designed to sink all rivals
on antibiotic resistant marker genes used in practically all GMO crops [1].
This immediately resulted in court battles and a requirement for everyone
who has made use of the technology to pay Monsanto royalty fees.
Monsanto has now launched another torpedo. A patent is pending on the
complete genome of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The bacterium is used in
a vector system to insert new genetic material into crop plants and is
a staple of the agricultural biotechnology sector. The patent has been
pending for 18 years, as challenges were made by rival companies claiming
to have invented the same. But the original technology was actually
developed by non-industry academics on government funds [2].
Monsanto stipulated in its “New Monsanto Pledge”, announced last November,
that it was committed to sharing knowledge and technology in order to benefit
people and the environment [3]. Working with a research team from the
University of Richmond, the company purports to have placed the genome of
Agrobacterium tumerfaciens onto a ‘public’ database. However a perusal of
the terms and conditions reveals that access is strictly limited to
non-profit groups willing to enter into a licensing contract with Monsanto.
A similar arrangement holds with the Monsanto genome database for rice.
The database registration agreement, available for download at Monsanto’s
devoted site, places severe restrictions on would-be researchers.
Any patent resulting from information in the database has to be filed
with Monsanto, and this applies anywhere in the world. Monsanto reserves
the right to claim royalties for such work. Even more disturbingly,
information on the database that is duplicated in any public source,
and gained from that source, is also subject to those conditions.
Unrestricted publication of research gained from using Monsanto’s
database is limited to 250 kilobases [4].
That is only half the story so far. Monsanto has become renowned for
throwing its weight about in the farming community. Several hundred
lawsuits are pending following the successful prosecution of Canadian
farmer Percy Schmeiser for alleged illegal possession of Monsanto’s
Round Up Ready canola. Schmeiser has now launched an appeal citing
seventeen instances of the judge having erred or judged contrary to law.
Amongst these are the determination that a farmer who inadvertently
grows Roundup Canola has no right to grow or sell any such seeds or
plants regardless of how they came to be there. Another crucial ground
for appeal is that Justice McKay placed the onus on Schmeiser to prove
how the seeds came to be in his field whether by contamination or
otherwise [5]. Monsanto subsequently set up a “snitch” line, advertised
on radio stations in western Canada, to encourage reports on other
alleged ‘malpractices’. Following protests, this has been dropped [6].
Now Monsanto is suing another Saskatchewan farmer for allegedly
growing Round Up canola without a license. Kelly Ryczek is accused
of obtaining Round Up seeds from a source other than Monsanto.
Ryczek allegedly planted some of these seeds and sold others on.
Monsanto is insisting Ryczek surrenders the seeds, and is demanding
a penalty for breach of their patent rights [7].
The Schmeiser case, because it took place in Canada, has prompted
concerns that it will serve as a legal precedent in other commonwealth
nations. Professor Brad Sherman of the Centre for Intellectual Property
in Agriculture, Australia National University, has pointed out that
Schmeiser was prosecuted for infringement of exclusive rights awarded to
Monsanto. Monsanto won the case based solely on the fact its GM canola
was found growing on Schmeiser’s land, regardless of the fact Schmeiser
was a victim of contamination.
Sherman thinks farmers are being pressured into buying Monsanto seeds,
because, if not, they run the risk of being prosecuted like Schmeiser.
Sherman concludes that the patent holder “has no incentive to take
responsibility for controlling its technology”. On the contrary the
farmers are being made responsible for controlling the patented genes [8].
It gets worse. The selling point behind Roundup Ready is that it is a
glyphosphate-resistant strain. Spray on the herbicide and you’re left with
nothing but Monsanto crops. However, after two years application,
glyphosphate-resistant volunteer corn plants begin to flourish.
This has led to the most bizarre Monsanto patent yet awarded.
US patent # 6,239,072 covers the practice of mixing glyphosphate
with other herbicides, and any premixture thereof. This patent has
been awarded despite the fact that mixing herbicides is what any sensible,
thinking farmer would naturally do, and has been doing, in the event of
resistant plants emerging. The patent also serves as a “de facto”
admission of the GM “superweed” problem and that Roundup technology
lacks efficacy and predictability.
It doesn’t end there. The scope of Monsanto’s ‘invention’ extends to
using the mixtures on any straggler volunteer crops that may develop
glyphosphate resistance by accident or design, at any time in the future.
Using such broad patents, Monsanto assures that nothing escapes its clutches.
By forcing farmers to use faulty technology and then patenting further
methods to rectify those faults Monsanto is placing the farming community
in a quicksand of ongoing legal obligations [9].
Fortunately, Monsanto doesn’t always get its way. Monsanto was subject
to a US department of Justice Antitrust Division enquiry back in 1998
regarding their acquisition of DeKalb Genetics Corporation. Similarly,
when Monsanto attempted to acquire Delta & Pine Land Co in 1999 to gain
control of that company’s terminator seed technology, the Antitrust
Division indicated that it was prepared to sue to prevent the transaction.
In a recent speech made before the Organization for Competitive Markets
in Nashville, Douglas Ross, Special Counsel for Agriculture at the
Antitrust division outlined the basis on which prosecution for antitrust
regulations can be brought. Amongst others, he cited conspiracies to
deny market access or otherwise suppress competition, the use of predatory
and/or exclusionary conduct to hold on to a monopoly in the market and
mergers that are likely to lessen competition in the market. Monsanto
is guilty on all three counts [10].
Resource Notes:
This report can be found on the I-SIS website
http://www.i-sis.org/CorporateSerfdom.shtml
The Institute of Science in Society
www.i-sis.org This email may be reproduced in any unmodified form, on condition
that it is accredited accordingly and contains a link to the I-SIS website:
http://www.i-sis.org/
For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the
Ban-GEF list, send email to: Search the archives (since ‘97) at
http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/ ,
or go to a recent day’s digest at http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/01/.
ISIS Report, - 4 October 2001
PO Box 32097,
London NW1 OXR
Tel: 44 -020-7380 0908
Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com with HELP in the SUBJECT line.
Updated weekly.