On Monday February 27th,
U.S. District Judge Buchwald of the Southern District of New York dismissed the
Monsanto lawsuit filed by an organization of organic farmers who challenged the
patenting of genetically modified seeds. This lawsuit was mentioned previously
on this blog, so this is a follow-up with unfortunate news with regards to
environmental justice. The problem with patenting life has been on my mind
since our discussion of bioprospecting and biopiracy. The original idea behind
patents was to protect an invention so that another person would not be able to
physically recreate what you have made and make a profit from it. With the
broadening of inventions to intellectual property and now to discoveries or tweakings of living organisms, it seems the patent has moved into a considerable gray
area in regards to justice. In its first conception it was meant to protect the
property and earnings of what was rightfully the inventor’s, now it is not so
clear. With this new idea of patenting seeds, there is now an active role of
non-patent holders. Before the only role of a non-patent holder was to not make and sell a patented product, it
was a decidedly passive role. Now organic farmers must actively protect their
fields from these “patented seeds” by incorporating buffer zones that take away
land for their crops. Even if they did not buy the seeds and do not want them,
if the wind carries a Monsanto seed to their field, these farmers could be in legal
trouble. I cannot believe that this is
in the true spirit of patent law and I do not think this is just.
To be fair, Monsanto does
spend significant amounts of money in research and development of these seeds
and should have some say in how their “creation” is used. If there was nothing
protecting their GM seeds they would have no incentive to develop them, and
some GM seeds have done good despite the evil spin the media usually gives
them. Some genetically modified rice has helped supplement vitamin A to
developing countries that suffer health effects from vitamin deficiencies. Plus
many genetically modified seeds allow farmers to use less chemical pesticides
and herbicides, which protects our water resources. The bottom line for me is
that farmers should not be punished and expected to protect their fields from
GM seeds. If Monsanto doesn’t want their GM seeds spreading through natural
means, the onus should be on them to
stop it, not on their innocent
neighbors. This legal ruling leaves the door wide open for Monsanto to treat
organic farmers however they please. While Monsanto claims at the moment that
they won’t sue farmers whose crops are contaminated by their seed, the patents
that they own convey an entirely opposite legal meaning. Organic farmers should
have protection of their livelihoods through the law just as Monsanto does, and
the responsibility of the spread of GM seeds should be on the creators, not the
innocent onlookers.
These cases are the type of thing that make me cringe and seriously reconsider whether patenting life should really be allowed. While some GM crops like the rice you mentioned have good intentions, this does not seem to be the case with Monsanto. For instance, the reason for a terminator gene is so farmers cannot save seeds and have to buy new every year. Pesticide-resistant crops are made available so farmers will buy more pesticide. It's about the money.
ReplyDeleteThe articles states "Monsanto praised the ruling saying in a statement it "makes it clear that there was neither a history of behavior nor a reasonable likelihood that Monsanto would pursue patent infringement matters against farmers who have no interest in using the company's patented seed products." I find this interesting because from what the article says and from hearing testimonials of people who have been sued by Monsanto, many times they target farmers who had no intention to use their seed or even knew it was in their fields.
I agree that these cases are a serious injustice to the farmers that not only are left with a crop they didn't want, but who will not be able to save seed, at a huge financial loss. In this case in particular, the spread of Monsanto's GM seed seems to be infringing on the farmers' rights to farm organically. It is really these farmers who should be protected.
I agree with dharmabum that the grounds on which this case was dismissed seem unjust. While very few farms are actually sued per year (about 13 a year) this doesn't mean the fear of being sued isn't affected many more.
ReplyDeleteStill, I don't think this issue is completely black and white. It is easy to demonize Monsanto, but, I do think they deserve some protections. However, is it still considered patent infringement if there is no intention of crossing the crops? The genes are still being “stolen,” even if it is passively. The responsibility currently rests on the organic farmers to keep the GMO’s out of their fields. While this doesn’t seem fair—could either side control cross pollination?
As dharmabum mentioned, there has been some development of a terminator gene that would create seeds that do not reproduce. Monsanto pledged they would not commercialize this technology—and to the best of my knowledge, they haven’t. This could stop contamination, but it would also make farmers using Monsanto’s seed completely dependent on the company for seed each year. That doesn’t seem ethical either.
This issue definitely seems really sticky, and I agree with all of the points stated here. Genetically modified seeds have a place providing benefits to some aspects of agriculture, but the legal ramifications--and the burdens--of enforcing these patents are starting to become more and more complicated. How do you define whether natural processes spreading seeds was an accident? How do you punish someone for this? At the same time, how is it fair to other farmers to have to purchase new seeds every season because theirs do not reproduce? A lot of this seems to look at how much of nature we believe we can control, as well as what kind of rights to nature we have as individual companies.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Rafiki and Dharmabum that this is not justice at all, but at the same time I acknowledge that there are valid points on both sides. However, punishing those who cannot prevent something from happening, and trying to put the burden of actively enforcing a patent on those who were not even in the patent process seems outlandish, and almost a form of scapegoating that involves making a profit out of the ignorance of others (in this case, not knowing how much GM seed has been contaminating organic farms).
Nice discussion going on here. Good job!
ReplyDelete