In a small win for Schmeiser, he will not be required to pay
Monsanto for the seed. The decision follows two major setbacks for
Monsanto who, in response to strong consumer and industry
resistance, announced earlier in May that they would back off on
plans to commercialize GE wheat globally and GE canola in
Australia.
Greenpeace India is appalled at the decision of the Canadian
court, especially since India is on the brink of revamping its
regulatory structure. Considering the ground realities of Indian
agriculture, Percy Schmeiser's experience with GMOs - the
technology and the ruthless power of the corporation - serves as a
harsh reminder of how a technology that claimed to benefit farmers
has ended up persecuting them, and amply demonstrates how
disastrous it would be for India to chose the GM path as the future
of the country's agricultural policy.
"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, 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 legal battle with Monsanto. (See
Footnote 1)
"The decision can have major repercussions for Indian farmers.
Given the small land holdings that are common here, the chances of
GMO contamination are far higher," pointed out Dr. Ashesh Tayal,
Scientific Advisor, Greenpeace India, "The fact that both the
Indian Government and Monsanto (which holds the patent of Bt gene)
are turning a blind eye to the "illegal" spread of Bt Cotton in
Punjab, Rajasthan and parts of Uttar Pradesh shows that they are
playing a similar game here. It is only a matter of time before
Monsanto uses the regulatory authorities to crack down on farmers
and extracts a heavy price for contamination due to their
uncontrolled, primitive genetic engineering technology."
"Genetic contamination from GE canola is rampant," continued Pat
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."
For further information:
Dr. Ashesh Tayal, Scientific Advisor, Greenpeace India:
+919845535404 
Namrata Chowdhary, Media Officer:
+919810850092 
FOOTNOTE 1.
Legal history of the Percy Schmeiser V/S Monsanto case:
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.
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.