So I found an article yesterday about a Supreme Court decision that affects people who patent plants and farmers who end up having those genetically engineered plants end up in their fields via the inevitable--by which I mean that once something is "out there" it's pretty hard to put it back in the bottle (so, wind-carried seeds, bee pollination, etc.)
The article was interesting enough that I dove into a three-hour-long investigation into whether or not the claims by the farmers in the article had any real merit or if these complaints of theirs were simply unfounded fears about what might happen to them "if".
Now, you may be wondering why this is so important to me, and I'll admit that my interest in all things "farm" stems from a lovely tradition started by members of the Gilmore family (my boyfriend's Mom's side of the family) called "Lunch Club". And during one of our inaugural session it was suggested that everyone should come prepared with a topic. I jokingly insisted that if this were to be the case, my topic would be farm animals.
Yep. Farm animals.
So I began to research articles to bring to our lunch clubs regarding farm animals, and ever since then, I've been weirdly interested in farm stuff--mainly because the plights of farms and farmers are part of our American heritage.
I remember back in the 80's when Farm Aid came into being--and how big of a deal it was. People wanted to contribute money to saving our local farms and farmers, and to a lot of Americans, that is still a big deal. And yes, there are still Farm Aid concerts going on.
So here we are again, dealing with a large corporation and a lot of small farmers--many of whom like to be able to live and work the way that they have always grown up living and working--off the land. From what I have read, I can generally say that there are some farmers who resent the government telling it what to do, and by extension, they will resent anyone else who isn't "the law" doing the same. One of those "not the law" people is Monsanto.
Unfortunately for farmers, and perhaps for us, there are things called patent laws which allow people who possess them to regulate how people can and can't use their stuff to make money. Where this gets tricky, however, is when you're dealing with factors that really can't be controlled--like wind, random trucks passing by and accidentally dropping things in your ditch, animal droppings, bee pollination, and migration patterns of animals that might carry seeds or pollens in their fur or feathers.
Now, I have read in an NPR article, though I haven't yet researched it, that protecting against such randomness isn't too difficult. I'm not sure I really believe this, but if I find out later that I was wrong, I will be happy to tell you all about it--you can be sure. (Check out Myth 3 in the article. You'll see where I'm getting this idea from.)
So farmers want to be protected from having their crops ruined. Monsanto wants to be protected from people using their property without proper permission and compensation. And the courts decided that the farmers were partly right in that contamination by GMOs in their crops was likely inevitable to some degree--that degree being 1% of their crop. So now Monsanto can't sue them for that, and that's pretty good news--for both parties. But who determines that 1%? Probably our nation's courts.
That said, Monsanto has agreed not to prosecute farmers who have contaminated crops due to unwitting contamination (at least when it comes to "trace amounts"--whatever that might mean. You can check out item X of their commitment statement,) and they even offer to pay for people to come onto your farm and pick the offending crops for you (Check out their Myth-busting page.) And maybe that leaves you feeling a little uncomfortable, too. After all, what happens to the money that you lose by not having that 1% of your crop yield? Does Monsanto agree to pay for that?
Sadly, not that I've seen so far.
I imagine most farmers just agree to pay the fee for using the patented crops. I imagine it's probably cheaper and less invasive. But what does that say about us, as a nation, if we're willing to allow these kinds of things to happen?
I've heard a few analogies that Monsanto is kind of like the mafia--they infect your crops with their stuff, and then extort money from people for the "cure"--which could be anything from removing those crops to avoiding huge legal bills. And I'm not sure I agree with the analogy mostly because they're comparing a (hopefully) law-abiding corporation to a gang that has only its own interests at heart.
Of course, a lot of you out there probably see corporations as greedy, soul-sucking entities that care nothing about the plight of the people and more about their bottom line.
I'd like to believe better of corporations; however, I think it is in everyone's best interests to hold to that old adage on which our legal system is based: innocent until proven guilty.
In reading something that Percy Schmeiser wrote (you can see how he relates to this discussion by reading his Wikipedia entry,) and doing only a little reading on the whole matter, I have come to the conclusion that everyone sees things based on their own idea of how the world should work, and while I can applaud Percy (and OSGATA et al.) for persevering against what they perceive to be a grave injustice (and actually bettering the lives and livelihoods of future farmers), I can also applaud Monsanto for continuing to refine their interactions with the farming community at large in part due to the efforts of those who feel they have been wronged.
That said, this debate isn't over, and it harbors within it larger debates and fears: how can we trust corporations to have our best interests at heart if they're goal is to make money off of their products? Is the government really working for us, or for big businesses--taking corporate donations for their campaigns and then rewarding them by creating laws that benefit the corporations that got them elected? Is our judicial system competent and uncorrupt enough to handle these kinds of issues? Is greed more powerful than the life of a person? Can we effect change? And if we as people can't really effect change, what recourse do we have in the grand scheme of things?
These are not easy questions to answer, and I am certainly not qualified to even begin to offer an educated opinion on them, but they are important.
So with that said, I'd like to leave you with a few more things I found while trying to come to grips with my own decision about all of this, and I hope they help you to find some clarity on the issues.
OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto -- taken from OSGATA's website, it contains briefs, transcripts, and related news to the court case
Petitioner's Reply Brief -- OSGATA's Supreme Court reply brief
United States Patent and Trademark Office: About Plant Patents -- all the things you ever wanted to know about how to file a plant patent and what it is
Panic-Free GMOs -- A series of articles from Grist which I was directed to by an article written by Dan Charles from NPR
Monsanto's Official Site
No comments:
Post a Comment