Monsanto v. small farmers

Organic farmers go to great lengths to make sure that their produce are free of synthetics chemicals, pesticides and fertilizer. It turns out that hovering over them is a threat that their crops will be contaminated by genetically modified strains, and, on top of that should that nightmare happen, it would be possible for agriculture giant Monsanto to sue them for patent infringement.

Surely a world that would allow this to happen must be some kind of nightmarish Wonderland or Twilight Zone.

But it is happening here, now, in our world.

On June 1, Wednesday, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT http://pubpat.org/ ), on behalf of family farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizations, amended their complaint against Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed, and added more plaintiffs for a total of 83 complainants representing hundreds of thousands of farmers and organizations, according to a report from the Center for Food Safety (http://truefoodnow.org/2011/06/01/family-farmers-amplify-complaint-against-monsanto%e2%80%99s-gmos-reinforcing-their-arguments-with-two-dozen-additional-plaintiffs/#more-1650)

Daniel B. Ravicher, PUBPAT executive director, explained that they are just asking Monsanto to reassure the farmers and organizations involved that Monsanto will not accuse them of patent infringement if their crops are contaminated with Monsanto's seed.

The original suit was filed in March, and after that Monsanto said then that they would not assert their patents against farmers who suffer "trace" amounts of transgenic contamination.

Heartened by this statement and hoping to resolve the case PUBPAT wrote to Monsanto to ask them make this promise legally binding. Sadly, in response, Monsanto's lawyer rejected the request and then stated that Monsanto may claim patent infringement against organic farmers whose plants get contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.

Jim Gerritsen, a farmer from Maine and the president of lead plaintiff the Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA http://www.osgata.org/) noted that Monsanto’s failure to address the farmers' concerns reaffirmed the importance of the lawsuit.

Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer from Iowa, summed up the problem: "It is bad enough that we face the threat of contamination of our organic and non-transgenic crops. The least Monsanto can do is give us assurance that they won’t sue us for their own genetic trespass."

Ruth Chantry of Nebraska expressed the anger of the group: "It is outrageous that our entire farm, family business, and livelihood could be at risk because of Monsanto’s backward and oppressive response and enforcement towards farmers in regards to transgenic pollen drift, unasked for and unwanted—and the subsequent results in fields and farms." She added, "Any transgenic pollen drift that would ever come onto our farm is of great detriment to us, and as such, it is an invasion upon and a contamination of our crops, the multi-species habitat we are assisting and creating here—and to the integrity of how we are farming organically and Biodynamically."

Monsanto has, in the past, sued a family farmer in Canada over seed that had contaminated the farmer's fields. Monsanto demanded that Percy Schmeiser (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm) pay the $15/acre technology fee that Monsanto charges its customers because he "grew" their genetically modified canola plants. Schmeiser did not want to grow Monsanto's canola because he had his own canola plants that he had developed.

Monsanto won at the federal court level, but the Canadian Supreme Court said that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto the technology fee. However, Schmeiser's other concerns were not properly addressed.

The present suit against Monsanto raises many other important issues, most important of which is the safety of the food we eat, as the issue of the safety of GMOs has not yet been properly addressed.

Kansas wheat farmer Bryce Stephens, who is vice president of OSGATA and spokesman for the Organic Crop Improvement Association-International explained that when GMO crops were first allowed by the U.S. Government, they were labelled as Generally Recognized As Safe based on internal studies and company-funded research. He noted: "With the long-term health consequences of GMO food yet to be understood and in the absence of objective studies, we have all been involuntarily co-opted into a giant biotech industry experiment … Our citizens and the people of the world deserve better than that."