"This is a sad day for farmers worldwide," said Pat Venditti,
Genetic Engineering Campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. "Monsanto's
canola has been contaminating the fields of Western Canada for
years now, as there is no way to contain their transgenic
pollution. Unfortunately, the Court has held that Monsanto can keep
polluting farmers' fields and keep menacing them with costly
lawsuits. Farmers should be able to keep their fields GE-free, but
the Court has held that's a decision best left to Monsanto."
In 1997, Schmeiser discovered, while routinely spraying
herbicide along a ditch, that some of his canola plants had become
herbicide-resistant - contaminated by pollen from Monsanto's
patented herbicide-resistant canola. In August 1998, Monsanto
launched a lawsuit against Schmeiser for patent infringement,
alleging that Schmeiser had acquired and planted seeds containing
patented genes without a license, and then sold harvested seed,
thus infringing the company's patent. Mr. Schmeiser has become a
globally known figure during his long legal battle with
Monsanto.
In March 2001, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Schmeiser
was liable for having infringed Monsanto's patent. While the court
found no evidence that Schmeiser had deliberately contaminated his
crops with Monsanto seed, it ruled that the fact that Schmeiser had
planted seeds containing patented genes meant Schmeiser had
violated Monsanto's patent, regardless of how the genetic material
got into the farmer's crops.
Schmeiser appealed the decision, and in May 2002 his case was
heard in the Federal Court of Appeal, which upheld the lower
court's decision. Schmeiser appealed again, and in January 2004 his
case went before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Three main issues were deliberated by the Canadian Supreme
Court:
1) The validity and scope of genetic patents - whether or not
life forms may be patented.
2) What kind of use constitutes infringement? Schmeiser argued
that since he never sprayed his plants with Roundup, and thus never
took advantage of their herbicide resistance, he never benefited in
any way from the presence of Monsanto's patented material in his
crops. In this case, Schmeiser argued that as he did not exploit
Monsanto's invention, he did not infringe Monsanto's patent.
3) The "innocent bystander" problem. Schmeiser argued that where
patented material passively and inadvertently mixes with personal
property, the property holder should not be held accountable to the
patent holder. Instead, in such cases the innocent bystander should
be protected by an implied license from the patent holder.
"Genetic contamination from genetically engineered canola is
rampant," continued Mr. Venditti. "Monsanto has introduced an
uncontrollable crop with no liability to farmers or the public.
This ignores the widespread contamination being caused by Monsanto.
The decision of the court essentially makes farmers liable to
Monsanto for Monsanto's own genetic pollution. It means that
Monsanto can reach into farmers' fields and steal their profits and
livelihoods."
Follow the Greenpeace Global Campaign against GE on
www.greenpeace.org/stopGMO