At first glance, it was an open-and-shut case. In 1998, Mississippi farmer Homan McFarling bought soybean seeds with genetic traits owned by Monsanto, then as now the world's dominant provider of genetically modified seeds -- and also the biggest herbicide maker.
Like all farmers who buy GM seeds, McFarling signed a contract obliging him not to hold back any of the resulting harvest as seed for the next year's planting. But McFarling saved his seeds anyway -- and Monsanto busted him. Hot to protect its multibillion-dollar investment in genetic modification, Monsanto set loose a cadre of rent-a-cops into the farm belt in the late 1990s, in search of farmers who dared defy its patent claims.
According to a comprehensive 2005 study [PDF] by the Center For Food Safety, "Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers." By the time of the study, the company had launched 90 lawsuits involving 147 farmers and 39 small businesses, CFS reports.
McFarling was one of Monsanto's first targets. The giant corporation sent the full weight of the law crashing down on the farmer's head, suing him and winning a judgment of $780,000 (he had originally bought $24,000 in seeds, according to a New York Times account from 2003.
Preventing people from saving seeds and freely propagating crops has been tried before. In medieval times, merchants in the Levant strove mightily to corner the coffee market by refusing to export raw coffee beans that might be replanted. Their effort eventually failed, and coffee now flourishes in Latin America, South Asia, and southern Africa.
But Monsanto has patent law on its side. Monsanto has established for itself the right to claim ownership of genetic material -- a revolutionary step in the history of property rights.
And McFarling trespassed on those rights. He signed a contract and then reneged on it. Case closed. Early this month, the Supreme Court upheld Monsanto's claim against McFarling (through the appeals process, the fine has been whittled to $350,000). The seed giant's case was so strong that the court made its ruling without comment.
Yet the logic behind Monsanto's claim, so airtight on its own terms, has serious implications for broader society.
Seminal Logic
Desire to plant Roundup-Ready soybeans -- engineered so that the plants can withstand infinite doses of Monsanto's flagship herbicide -- is what plunged McFarling into his legal mess.
These statistics reflect 2004 data and are based on industry sources: Monsanto and ISAAA.
Source: Etc. Group
Herbicide-tolerant soy roared through the farm belt like a prairie fire in the 1990s. Introduced in 1995, it accounted for nearly 50 percent of all soy by 1998, the year that McFarling made the seed order he will rue for the rest of his life. Today, more than 90 percent of soy planted in the United States is herbicide-tolerant -- and the great bulk of it contains Monsanto's Roundup-Ready trait. Globally, 91 percent of genetically modified soy contains [PDF] Monsanto traits; the company's market share in the United States is likely even higher.
To understand how this product conquered the farm belt so rapidly, you have to understand how large-scale commodity farmers make decisions. Your neighbor tries a new product, and suddenly boasts weed-free fields and yields that trump yours.
He reveals that he bought newfangled, high-dollar seeds -- and more than made his money back with the higher yield. So you do the same. Trouble is, everyone else does, too -- and the higher yields nationwide lead to lower prices for soy, erasing any advantage of the new seeds.
Indeed, USDA figures show that soybean production surged after the introduction of herbicide-tolerant varieties in 1995 -- and prices dropped. Soy prices didn't recover in any meaningful way until the great biofuel boom that started in 2006. All things being equal, technologies that increase yield end up lowering prices -- erasing any net gain for farmers.
Thus in their rush to adapt new technologies, farmers aren't working in their own interest, but rather in the interests of big corporate buyers like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill -- and, of course, in the interests of the companies that sell the new technologies, like Monsanto.
And once new technologies gain traction, they can be nearly impossible to resist. If soybean prices are dropping because all farmers are adopting a new technology, then holding out can seem insane. Say you're trying to make a living growing soybeans, and you'd prefer not to use GM seeds. By holding out, you get low prices and subpar yields -- a disastrous combination.
Devil's Bargain
Even when prices are high -- as they are now, because of the biofuel boom -- there's economic pressure to submit to GM seeds. Farmers know that good times don't last forever; you have to "make hay while the sun shines." To wring every penny out of the soy rally, you have to maximize yield. And that means planting Roundup Ready soy -- and dousing it with Roundup, Monsanto's flagship herbicide.
Thus farmers hardly enter into Monsanto's "technology agreements" under completely free-market conditions. Their choice is essentially to submit to Monsanto's terms, or live with lower yields.
Remember, 90 percent of U.S. soy -- our second-biggest crop -- is genetically modified to be herbicide-resistant; and more than 90 percent of that contains traits owned by Monsanto. For corn, our biggest crop, 60 percent is GM -- and nearly all of it contains Monsanto genes.
Since the U.S. food system relies so heavily on these two crops, essentially our entire food supply is genetically modified, to the benefit of one company. Since the U.S. doesn't require companies to label GM ingredients, it's impossible to know how much of the U.S. diet contains genes owned by Monsanto. In a much-cited study from 2000, the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated that 70 percent of food in the U.S. contains genetically modified traits. The proliferation of GM seeds has only grown since.
Somehow, a single corporation has managed to use patent law to gain de facto control of the nation's two biggest crops -- and managed to annul the age-old right of seed-saving over a broad swath of farm country. Monsanto may have airtight logic on its side for patent law, but it has clearly run afoul of a much less-enforced branch of legal code: antitrust law.
The time has come to bust up this giant seed trust.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
rong Posted 4:57 am
17 Jan 2008
What's truly scary is the data about 70% of the US food being contaminated with genetically modified ingredients. It's not so much what science says about whether they think it's going to hurt you, it's about knowledge and choice. We deserve to know what's in our food and choose based on that knowledge. The government, I think, is turning a blind eye to the needs of its citizens in this case. It shouldn't be up to them to decide for us what's important for us to know and what's not. But then, it seems pretty clear that large parts of our government are being subverted by special interests, and have been for some time.
Permalink
swan Posted 5:34 am
17 Jan 2008
We can make our voices heard. The organic food movement is really taking off. We don't have to let them get by with this. I am writing about the local food movement and other ways of living in harmony with the natural world in my blog at http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com
Permalink
GoodCheer Posted 6:01 am
17 Jan 2008
A possible solution through anti-trust litigation would be to separate the company that sells seeds and owns genetic patents from the company that sells chemicals... should be an easy enough delineation to make. It's not clear what the outcome would be... the seed company might make seeds tolerant of other company's herbicides... or seeds that generate herbicide in their own metabolic processes.
Permalink
natureguru Posted 1:12 am
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 1:25 am
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
COmac Posted 3:50 am
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
nycowboy Posted 4:29 am
18 Jan 2008
Can you imagine the Supreme Court of the 1960s or 1970s upholding these cases?
Clearly, where there where cases of signed and infringed patents, then there should be punishment. But aren't many of these cases excessive? Understandably, these amounts are usually significantly reduced after the judgment, but still.
Permalink
grill53 Posted 11:21 pm
18 Jan 2008
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
He is suing to recover his costs as a result of Monsanto's lawsuit. The Supreme Court "determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields."
The court date is actually next week - January 23, 2008 - this will be very interesting...
excerpt from the site below:
Schmeiser vs Monsanto court date set
The liability issue of the presence of Roundup Ready canola which contaminated Percy Schmeiser's fields will be addressed in a court date that has been set for January 23, 2008. After a mediation session failed to produce an agreement, the court date was set to address the issue. In a statement released on May 18, 2007, Percy Schmeiser stated that "I am disappointed that mediation did not result in a settlement on the liability issue, yet at the same time optimistic that now that a court date has been set, the matter will finally be addressed."
Permalink
planetthoughts Posted 4:49 pm
19 Jan 2008
Something should be done about this situation. I understand the farmers signed an agreement that they can not re-sue the seeds. Perhaps we need a Federal law, or even a constitutional amendment, preventing such contractual clauses that license living things rather than selling them. Monsanto should be required to improve their product in order to make more sales. Or perhaps the license can be valid, but could be for a minimum of 5 years at a time, allowing farmers a less expensive path by re-using seeds for 5 years before needing to purchase again.
Permalink
mdwalsh Posted 6:18 am
20 Jan 2008
Because there is no proof that GM crops are bad for us physically, the FDA has no right to label GM products. Even if they did, the genetic modification is actually part of the pesticide, and thereby domain of the EPA. But since GM crops are foods, the EPA can't do anything. Furthermore, by consolidating farms and pushing the use of markets of scale to get farmers to plant commodity crops, they've driven a greater divide between the consumer and producer.
I think the only way out is to call for more information. Push for producers to label products as GMO free and for the government to allow them to do it, and support farmers who use non-GMO seed locally, and even go so far as to support them just for using GMO seed that's NOT Monsanto.
Permalink
ckmotorka Posted 1:09 pm
22 Jan 2008
Permalink
mrtomato Posted 2:03 pm
22 Jan 2008
Permalink
mrtomato Posted 2:09 pm
22 Jan 2008
Permalink
luannrudolph Posted 11:58 pm
22 Jan 2008
But the power of the consumer is great. What we can do is just stop supporting their products. First and foremost, stop using round-up. I'm probably preaching to the choir here but there is no need for this product to be in use, especially by the average consumer who uses it to kill weeds in sidewalk cracks. Buy local and buy organic. These need to go hand in hand. Just because it is local, does not mean that it is not GMO. And last, educate, educate, educate. The majority of us who read articles on this site already know about the evils of Monsanto and GMO in general. It is within our power to educate those that don't. Make this a topic of concern. Talk to your government representatives. Boycotts. All of these things will work if there is a big enough movement around it! The power is ours!
http://greenmadesimple.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Martha Hagood Posted 1:17 pm
23 Jan 2008
Will enough people do that to have any kind of economic impact? If not, the courts have opened the door to major change before. About 100 years ago, a combination of popular muckraking journalists and savvy politicians pushed back against monopolistic companies -- the Beef Trust, Standard Oil, insurance companies, financial institutions -- and it made for real change. We could do worse than look to the Progressive Era for strategies.
Permalink
Greennovator Posted 4:50 pm
24 Jan 2008
Somebody, why I can't find anything about what happenned with 'Schmeiser V Monsanto' that was supposed to go to court yesterday (Jan 23rd 2008). Grist, and others, post these provacative stories and then leave us hangin'. Nothing on AP or Reuters or Guardian or NZHerald or Google or etc. -- please use your sources to give us an update (Tom Philpott, you listening?) [my challenge to all of you]
(maybe Saskatchewan news is a bit slower to hit the NET? Did the case get rescheduled?)
Lew
(longtime lurker, 1st time poster, frequently pitying 'J-blo-Ma'[sic]; DOING the kinds of things you report on, pretty much since birth.)
Permalink
Greennovator Posted 6:23 pm
24 Jan 2008
Permalink
RudolfC Posted 7:29 am
21 Feb 2008
Permalink