DOCSLIB.ORG

Percy Schmeiser– Yale Presentation – October 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Percy Schmeiser– Yale Presentation – October 2008 Percy Schmeiser– Yale Presentation – October 2008 Forward Percy Schmeiser was born and raised in Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada. This agricultural based community of 650 people is located in the heart of Canada’s three western prairie provinces. The town of Bruno has a predominant German heritage and is located 90 km (55 miles) east of Saskatoon, which is the largest city in the province of Saskatchewan. For seventy years, Schmeiser has been involved in agriculture. Following his grandfather and father, he is a third generation farmer and has been farming since 1946. In 1952, he joined the family farm equipment dealership business that was started by his father in 1931. Schmeiser has served the public in various capacities. On the provincial political level, he was elected as Member of the Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) for the constituency of Watrous in the Saskatchewan Legislature in 1967. At the municipal level, he served as Mayor for the Town of Bruno from 1963‐1982. He also was a town councilor from 1960‐1963 and from 1985‐1988. Schmeiser re‐entered municipal politics in 2003 and served as a councilor and deputy Mayor until 2006. Schmeiser served as a Director on the Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission from 1991‐1999. He also was a Director with the Saskatchewan‐Manitoba Implement Dealers Association and the President of the White Farm Equipment Dealers Council in Canada. He is a 4th Degree Knight of the Knights of Columbus, a past member of his local Lion’s Club and a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Schmeiser faced a lawsuit from Monsanto in 1998 over the presence of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola that had contaminated his fields. He was sued for patent infringement even though he did not, nor had any intention of using Monsanto’s product. The dispute went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where Schmeiser was successful as the Court ruled that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto the Technology Use Fee or damages. The Supreme Court, as part of their decision, also ruled in 5‐4 decision that Monsanto’s patent on the genetically patented canola was valid. At the same time, Schmeiser launched legal action against Monsanto for the contamination of his fields by Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Canola. This action was settled out of court in March 2008, where Monsanto agreed to pay for the clean‐up costs and no restrictions on discussing the details of the case were placed on Schmeiser. Due to the significance of the issue and these cases, Percy Schmeiser has become a beacon and lightning rod in the fight of farmers to retain their right to plant their own seeds from previous crops, and to farm without the unwanted contamination of genetically modified organisms or seeds. Percy and Louise continue to reside in their hometown of Bruno. They have five children fifteen grandchildren and one great grandchild. Percy Schmeiser; The Seed Saver I’ve been farming since 1947 when I took over from my father. My wife and I are known on the Prairies as seed developers in canola and as seed savers. Hundreds of thousands of farmers save their seed from year to year. I was also a member of the provincial legislature. I was on many agricultural committees, both on the provincial level and representing the province on the federal level. I was mayor of my community and a councillor for over 25 years. So, all my life I’ve worked for the betterment of farmers and rules, laws and regulations that would benefit them and make their farming operations viable. The whole issue of GMOs can be divided into three main categories: the first category is the issue of the property rights of farmers versus the intellectual property rights of multinationals like Monsanto. The second issue is the health and danger to our food with the introduction of GMOs. The third issue is the impact on the environment. I want to concentrate on the issue I’m most concerned with: Property rights of farmers vs. the intellectual property rights of multinationals. In August 1998 a lawsuit was launched against me by Monsanto. Up to that time, I never had anything to do with Monsanto’s GM canola. I’d never bought their seed or gone to a Monsanto meeting. I didn’t even know a Monsanto rep. I was not interested in their Roundup Ready canola, nor did I have any intention to grow it. I was 67 years old and was looking gradually retiring from farming. Personally, I did not believe in the concept of allowing weeds to grow side by side with the canola plants. Using Roundup Ready canola means that the weeds would rob the plants of much needed moisture at the most critical stage of growth. Then the farmer applies the chemical (Roundup) when the weeds reach a certain stage so the chemical kills it. My farming practice involved spraying my fields with chemical prior to the seeding. In my mind, this allowed the canola plants to grow and not lose the moisture to the weeds. This was the most common and accepted farming practice of canola growers prior to the introduction of GM canola. The difference though, came to costs. Applying chemicals before germination resulted in a cost of around $20/acre. Applying Roundup after germination cost around $4/acre. Seeing a huge profit opportunity (in addition to additional chemical sales) Monsanto allowed farmers to “license” the technology and introduced a “Technology Use Fee” of $15/acre on top of the cost of the chemical. In the lawsuit, there were a number of items that were identified. First of all, they said I had somehow acquired Monsanto’s GM canola seed without a license; that I planted it, grew it without signing their contract and therefore infringed on their patent. They went on to say that the basis or their claim that they had done tests on my fields without my knowledge, and these test showed that my canola had 80 or 90 percent presence of their Roundup Ready canola. Their demand was that I pay them their Technology Use Fee; damages, because I somehow hurt their reputation and all of their court costs and fees. In Canada, farmers, seed companies and seed developers are entitled to certain rights and privileges that are enshrined in law under the Plant Breeders Act. As a seed developer over my 50 plus years of farming, I was well aware of my right to save and reuse my own seed. It is a typical farming practice to save seeds from one crop to plant next year. That was my customary farming practice and this practice has been followed by farmers since the beginning of agriculture. However, for Monsanto, the rights they were given as a seed developer were not good enough for them. They successfully sought and were granted a patent on their product, in both Canada and the United States. To enforce their patent, they made farmers sign a contract for its use. An issue that you rarely hear about in the promotion of GMOs is the level of corporate control that Monsanto imposes on farmers when they sign that contract. When you review the details of the contract, to me this is one of the most vicious contracts on the face of the Earth, and it takes all of farmers’ rights away. These are some of the main points in a contract with Monsanto; they have them nicely hidden in the small print of the contract. 1. A farmer can never use his own seeds. 2. You must always buy seeds from Monsanto. 3. You must only buy your chemicals from Monsanto. 4. If you commit some violation of this contract, and they fine you, you must sign a non‐ disclosure statement that you cannot talk to the media or to your neighbors about what Monsanto has done to you. Monsanto often says there have only been a few cases, but we don’t really know because farmers have to sign this non‐disclosure statement. You must pay Monsanto the $15/acre per year license fee for the privilege of growing GMOs and recently they’ve added another clause ‐ you can no longer sue Monsanto for whatever reason. You can never take Monsanto to court, even if you feel Monsanto did not meets their requirements under the contract. Another important issue is you must permit Monsanto’s detectives to come onto your land or look in your storage facilities for three years after the date you sign the contract, even though you may only grow it one year. And who is Monsanto’s detectives? They’re former or retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers. They go under the name of Robinson Investigation Services of Saskatoon and they cover all of Canada. In the US they use Pickerton Investigation Services, who also claim that they use former policemen as their detectives. These detectives would go to our local rural municipal offices and pick up maps of who owned what property, and then they would match it up with all fields that were growing canola, and cross reference this with their licensed users. They would then go out to all of the canola fields that were not registered with them, take plants and perform “quick tests” on them to see if there was a presence of their product. They literally would steal a farmer’s plants to do these tests. But they would go even farther than that. Monsanto runs advertisements where they say that if you think your neighbor is growing GM canola or soybeans without license you should inform on them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Show Transcript Deconstructing Dinner Kootenay Co-Op Radio CJLY Nelson, B.C. Canada April 20, 2006 Title: GE Free Canada Produce
    Show Transcript Deconstructing Dinner Kootenay Co-op Radio CJLY Nelson, B.C. Canada April 20, 2006 Title: GE Free Canada Producer / Host: Jon Steinman Transcript: Ruth Taylor Jon Steinman: And welcome to Deconstructing Dinner – produced and recorded in the studios of Kootenay Co-op Radio in Nelson, British Columbia. I’m Jon Steinman. Deconstructing Dinner is a weekly one-hour program that aims to discuss all there is to know about our food, but most importantly, how the food choices we make impact ourselves, our communities and the planet. On the surface, it may appear rather easy to walk into a grocery store or a restaurant, place an item into the shopping cart or select an appetizer off of a menu, but the second any of us choose to begin reading a label or asking a waiter or waitress a question about the origins of a menu item, this daily routine of making food choices becomes much more complicated. A level of complication that is very unique to North Americans, because as is the case throughout many cultures around the globe, food is inextricably linked to culture, where food choices do not require many questions, as these traditions and processes have been unchanged for generations. Here in North America on the other hand, the origin of many of our foods is unknown – where and how was it grown, who grew it, what was the cow fed and how was it treated, what is soy lecithin that seems to be in almost every packaged food we buy. The more we question, the more complicated it all becomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Monsanto V Schmeiser: a Landmark Decision Concerning Farmer Liability and Transgenic Contamination
    Journal of Environmental Law (2005) Vol 17 No 1, 83–108 doi: 10.1093/envlaw/eqi004 CASE LAW ANALYSIS Monsanto v Schmeiser: A Landmark Decision concerning Farmer Liability and Transgenic Contamination Biotechnology—Genetically modified crop resistant to brand pesticide—Farmer grows crop without licence—Does patent on transgenic cells extend to seeds and crop itself?—Is there an infringement of patent despite lack of knowledge by farmer of presence of gene in seeds?— Farmer does not use brand pesticide on crop—Remedy for patent holder where user takes no advantage of benefits of patent Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 SCR 902; 2004 SCC 34; Supreme Court of Canada The Judgment The judgment of McLachlin CJ and Major, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish JJ was delivered by: THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND FISH J: Introduction 1 This case concerns a large scale, commercial farming operation that grew canola contain- ing a patented cell and gene without obtaining licence or permission. The main issue is whether it thereby breached the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4. We believe that it did. 2 In reaching this conclusion, we emphasise from the outset that we are not concerned here with the innocent discovery by farmers of ‘blow-by’ patented plants on their land or in their cultivated fields. Nor are we concerned with the scope of the respondents’ pat- ent or the wisdom and social utility of the genetic modification of genes and cells—a practice authorised by Parliament under the Patent Act and its regulations. 3 Our sole concern is with the application of established principles of patent law to the essentially undisputed facts of this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Unearthing the Power in GMO Discourse: an Analysis of Canadian Agriculture and Agrifood Debates by Wesley Tourangeau a Thesis P
    Unearthing the power in GMO discourse: An analysis of Canadian agriculture and agrifood debates by Wesley Tourangeau A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social and Ecological Sustainability Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2017 © Wesley Tourangeau 2017 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Dr. André Magnan Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Social Studies, University of Regina Supervisor(s) Dr. Jennifer Clapp Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo Internal Member Dr. Robert Gibson Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo Internal-external Member Dr. Suzan llcan Professor, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies; and Balsillie School of International Affairs. University of Waterloo Other Member(s) Dr. Andrea Collins Assistant Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo ii AUTHOR’S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii ABSTRACT The overall purpose of this doctoral research project is to add to our knowledge and understanding of power relations embedded in discourses regarding Canadian agriculture and agrifood debates. Power can be obscured by discourse, and discourse infiltrates acts of power. The primacy of scientific knowledge, specifically reductionist versions of modern science, in decision-making on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a fitting example; science-based information plays a critical role in safety assessments, while also holding a discursive role in the legitimation of GM technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Percy Press Kit FINAL 10.15.20
    Presents Percy A film by Clark Johnson Running time: 100 minutes, Canada, 2020 Language: English Distribution Publicity Bonne Smith Star PR Tel: 416-488-4436 136 Geary Ave, Unit 217 Twitter: @starpr2 Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6H 4H1 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 416-516-9775 Fax: 416-516-0651 E-mail: [email protected] www.mongrelmedia.com @MongrelMedia MongrelMedia 1 MONGREL MEDIA PRESENTS And CONCOURSE MEDIA PRESENTS A FILM BY CLARK JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER WALKEN ROBERTA MAXWELL CHRISTINA RICCI ZACH BRAFF MARTIN DONOVAN PETER STEBBINGS LUKE KIRBY Produced with the Participation of TELFILM CANDA In Association with CRAVE MANSA PRODUCTIONS Impact Consulting By GRASSHOPPER + MARKS PRODUCTIONS In Association With PRODUCTIVITY MEDIA CBC FILMS VIGILANTE PRODUCTIONS STELLAR CITIZENS DEEPAK KUMAR FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED 2 Produced with Financial Investment From MANITOBA FILM & MUSIC Produced with the Participation of ONTARIO CREATES A SCYTHIA FILMS PRODUCTION In Association With MAY STREET PRODUCTIONS And INFERNO PICTURES Percy Directed by CLARK JOHNSON Written By GARFIELD L. MILLER And HILARY PRYOR Produced by DANIEL BEKERMAN Producer ETHAN LAZAR Producers BRENDON SAWATZKY IAN DIMERMAN Producers HILARY PRYOR GARFIELD L. MILLER Co-Produced by LAUREN GRANT 3 Executive Producers MARK GINGRAS JOHN LAING Executive Producers ANDY MARKS BEATA GUTMAN RYAN KRIVOSHEY Executive Producers KELLON AKEEM YANDY SMITH DWIGHT HOWARD Executive Producers WILLIAM G. SANTOR JOHN HILLS ANDREW CHANG-SANG Executive Producers HUSSAIN AMARSHI JONATHAN WYMAN Executive
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Rights and Systems for Maintaining Food Quality, Biosafety and Plant Biodiversity
    ‘Straightforward, honest, and uncompromising in describing the socio-political issues of food and the credible political options. There is not a policymaker on this planet who should not read this book. The authors know what they’re talking about and their editors know who they’re talking to. This is the best single summary of the political choices facing food and agriculture policymakers that has been written in this decade.’ Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group ‘This is a timely and valuable book about the most important “industry” of all, dominated by giant multina- tionals and governments of rich countries, who make the global rules. This concise overview is both authoritative and accessible for non-specialists – highly recommended to all who are concerned about food, health, and survival.’ Felix R. FitzRoy, Professor of Economics, University of St Andrews and Research Fellow, IZA, Bonn ‘This book is an excellent resource for those mapping the increasing control of our food chain by international players. The agreements that impact on the ability of nations to be food-sovereign and food-secure are described in lucid detail. This is useful information for scholars and policymakers.’ Suman Sahai, Director, Gene Campaign, India ‘In this volume, globally recognized legal and policy experts provide a comprehensive and outstanding analysis of the inter-relationships between intellectual property rights and systems for maintaining food quality, biosafety and plant biodiversity. These are demanding technical issues but have fundamental importance for the future of global agriculture. The book should be read by all concerned with how institutional and policy reforms in these critical areas will affect the livelihoods of poor farmers and the nutrition of societies world- wide.’ Keith E.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Science of Agricultural Biotechnology Corporate Technology, Law, and Local Control Over Food Production
    BEYOND THE SCIENCE OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY, LAW, AND LOCAL CONTROL OVER FOOD PRODUCTION Gabriela Pechlaner M.A., University of British Columbia, 2002 B.F.A., University of British Columbia, 1990 DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Department of Sociology and Anthropology O Gabriela Pechlaner 2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2007 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Gabriela Pechlaner Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Title of Dissertation: Beyond the Science of Agricultural Biotechnology Corporate Technology, Law, and Local Control over Food Production Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Dorothy Chunn Professor of Sociology Dr. Gerardo Otero Senior Supervisor Professor of Sociology Dr. Karl Froschauer Supervisor Assistant Professor of Sociology Dr. Murray Rutherford Supervisor Assistant Professor of Resource and Environmental Management Dr. Marjorie Griffin Cohen Internal Examiner Professor of Political Science Dr. Jack R. Kloppenburg, Jr. External Examiner Professor of Rural Sociology University of Wisconsin-Madison Date Defended: May 30,2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution. on its own behalf or for one of its users.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Organisms (Gmos) As Invasive Species
    Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development Vol. 4, No. 3, 2018, pp. 31-37 http://www.aiscience.org/journal/jepsd ISSN: 2381-7739 (Print); ISSN: 2381-7747 (Online) Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species John Paull * Geography and Spatial Sciences, School of Technology, Environments & Design, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia Abstract This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. “An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live” (NNSS, 2017). Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no ‘pull’ factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are ‘same but different’. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the ‘same’ as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are ‘different’ and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled - as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them.
    [Show full text]