India Sues Monsanto for . . . Biopiracy?
skepticblog.org
skepticblog.org
The big rise of GM corn in the US was due a gene that made feed corn resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which they are the primary world producer of. This has actually increased herbicide use significantly in both corn and soya crop where round-up ready is being planted, because now you can over spray without worry. The gene is patented and requires an IP license for each plant grown that comes bundled with the official seed.
This changes the farm dynamic considerably, as farmers who traditionally saved seeds for next years crop are now increasingly dependent on a single company and their IP portfolio. While the production gains and reduced labor costs are substantial, this has been tempered by seed license costs that have risen much faster than inflation.
At some point having too much of your food supply under the control of one corporation is a national security issue. If trends continue to the point that little other seed is being produced Monsanto could exert extreme pricing pressure or worse as production needs to be planned in advance.
This is probably not too big an issue in the US where they could simply be nationalized if things got out of hand, but what about India? What leverage would they have if one or two foreign companies controlled a large majority of their seed stock? Once farming evolves it's very difficult to go back, you aren't planting as many hectares and you have fewer trained workers and you're no longer producing the pesticides you need. But if they ignored the patent they'd definitely face WTO sanctions and be unable to find buyers for exports.
This is where the current fight comes in and gets rather misrepresented. The case isn't that they stole an Indian eggplant but that they imported the patented gene without approval from the recently created regulatory body. Obviously some amount of regulation is required there, as a sovereign state can't just have anybody walking in and splicing anything they feel like into sustenance crops. What if some huge chinese pharmaceutical company imported a drug into the US without any FDA approval and announced their intention to start human trials. Is there any doubt the government would quickly get an injunction against them?
He paints it as greedy bureaucrats wanting a handout and that certainly could be the case. But where the fight got started was over GM cotton that at the time was unregulated. It's such a good crop that farmers were switching very quickly and the government became concerned they wouldn't have any bargaining power left soon. So there were price controls a new regulatory body a sales ban and more price controls and yet they did lose control of the cotton crop without gaining any significant concessions.
That's all this probably comes down to - using any legal strategy to delay things until Monsanto is willing to agree to some concessions. Traditional price controls or progressive tariffs can have some pretty nasty consequences, so Monsanto has good reason to not like them. I'm not sure anyone knows the best way structure some protections, but it's clearly in their national interest to make sure they're covered. Monsanto could probably end this right now without any money changing hands by offering India a royalty free license they could use as a stick to keep the pricing at sustainable levels. As usual it turns out everyone's greedy.
"But Indian scientists are less thrilled. Govindarajan Padmanabhan from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore:
Our national labs have all the genes for rice improvement, we do not need Monsanto. The moratorium will actually affect the indigenous effort [to create GM crops that could feed India's rapidly growing population]."
EDIT: Eggplant, rice, what's the difference anyway?
India has in the past allowed infringement of patented HIV drugs. Why wouldn't India allow infringement of seed company patents in a crisis? The whole thing falls down as soon as farmers are told it is okay to break the "pledge".
OTOH, India isn't Iraq (et al): they might respond with a big, nuclear-backed, "F* YOU!", and get away by infringing like you said.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Owing your seeds to a company is a bad thing, though.
Here is a different bias.
GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs instantly DRM'd books which then can go out and make all the other books on the same shelf the property of the author too, which you now have to pay him for.
> GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs
> instantly DRM'd books [..]
It doesn't need to be like that though. GMO exists without IP law. The two concepts are not inherently tied.However on the subject of litigious entities Monsanto certainly dishes out far more than they get. Just do a google search for "Monsanto sues" to see what I mean.
Edit: Err down voted for admitting hyperbole, really?
They do have very litigious tendencies from what I can see, but I'm happy for anyone who disagrees to refute the statement. Takes a bit longer than down voting I suppose.
One farmer in particular decided to see if he could use normal plants to reproduce Monsanto seed which he succeded in and then got sued because its a violation of the agreement he agreed to. The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen.
All the food we eat is GMO because the genome of a plant naturally changes, now we just do GMO efficiently. Yes, there are risks, but natural GMO could produce a terminator gene as well. As much as I don't mind GMO I'm fully in support of labeling, especially the idea that those that don't use GMO can label as such.
Says who? Why don't you do some research before calling something BS? Read this account: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?
(And before anybody accuses me of being a Monsanto fanboy or something: I really don't care about this issue. I just decided to actually do some research after reading like 10 different rants against Monsanto in one day, and I found that although Monsanto sound like dicks, people still seem to feel the need to exaggerate.)
Why shouldn't he?
Monsanto's product contaminated his seeds, through no fault of his own. An apology, not a lawsuit, was in order.
Oh, sorry, but we infected your field.
And by the way you're not allowed to use your own seeds (the ones produced by his field) anymore because we infected them.
The thing you have to realize about patents is that it doesn't matter if you yourself built the thing that implements the patent; what matters is just whether you're using the patented technology or not.
It's a small step from this situation to creating a virus, patenting it and releasing it in the wild and calling all people that get the cold your property.
Patent ownership in this kind of case (the plants, not the people) needs to be dialed back.
I am unaware of any case in which an innocent farmer was a legitimate victim of accidental transfer. Can you please cite another source?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
Edit: Please also read ahelwer's comment further down.
Besides, what makes you think that regulators get things right? Even if you ignore regulatory capture, regulators are imperfect, have less information than market participants have, and have their own goals.
I don't think it is reasonable to assume anything but heat death will win the resource battle in this universe.
I will suggest this though, nature has been out-engineering nature for eons longer than we have, so if you want to get technical it gets the benefit of the doubt here. Our own tinkering has yielded incredible boons and shouldn't be quickly dismissed but we can't ignore the potential dangers and the history of global risk human greed and power seems willing to incur to get what it wants. That's all.
Also reading the grandparent, I don't think his point was that man can't out engineer nature, but that there is a heavy risk inherent in Monsanto's corporate strategy of trying to creating super breeds and monopolize markets with them to the exclusion of diversity (note this is generally considered bad for the market not just nature, call diversity a natural law if you will). So both child comments are arguing for and against a straw man, which, again if you want to be technical about things, is a fallacy.
Full disclosure: I love me some heirloom vegetables from my farm share (dirty hippy I know!)
Imagine the horror: New: Microsoft Corn95! We want to see Corn95 planted in every field. It will be the corn of choice for Enterprise farmers everywhere!
New! Symantec BlightCheck! automatically scans your crops for blights brought on by passing bird and insect traffic. In today's age of connected farms, you need BlightCheck!
New! MicroSoft CropWall! Seal your crops inside a protected environment!
Ah, monoculture.
I think that one shitty analogy holds everything the author is trying to convey. And it's the same lack of reason and actual argument with a blind approval of technology that any biochem company would love to fill your ears with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
You can read that yourself and draw your own conclusions (hint: you can't seed upwards of 90% of your field by driving past it with a truck). This has since then snowballed into the story of Monsanto employing a vast legal team to oppress the poor 'simple farmers'. This is patronizing - farmers (outside of communities that explicitly shun technology) are generally a very well-informed and technologically adept crowd, well used to hacking together electronics packages to make their lives easier (a cool example http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1254445743). The whole motherhood and apple pie callback to the days of yore definitely doesn't hurt the message though, so it stays around.
Anyway, take a look at the material on both sides of this topic.
And so's their treatment of farmers who do choose to use their seeds, and their treatment of populations close to farming communities, as well as their treatment of... well pretty much everybody once you get down to it[0].
[0] example: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...
I grow some RR crops and am not sure what you are referring to here. For the most part, farmers weren't reusing their seeds to begin with. The people in the business of genetics do a much better job, which helps keep the farm profitable.
On my farm, in the last couple of years, we have moved to growing entirely RR-free soybeans because a market has opened for soybeans free of the gene, but it limited to few Asian markets that our local distribution network has been able to capture.
With all the complaints about Monsanto in America, I find it interesting that the North American market by and large still demands RR-present commodities. Farmers are left to fill that demand, whether they like Monsanto or not.