Anti-biotech farmer
January 21, 2004
Associated Press/Reuters/CP [via agnet]

OTTAWA -- The Canada Supreme Court was cited as pointedly questioning lawyers for Monsanto Co. on Tuesday in a dispute with Saskatchewan canola grower Percy Schmeiser that has become a cause for biotechnology opponents and proponents around the globe.

The court could takes months to rule on the dispute.

Steven Shrybman, who is representing the Washington, D.C.-based International Center for Technology Assessment and five other groups who joined the Canada Supreme Court case in support of Schmeiser, was quoted as saying, "This exposes countless farmers to potential liability."

Schmeiser's lawyer was cited as arguing that in light of another court ruling refusing to patent "a higher life form" -- a genetically engineered mouse created by Harvard University -- Monsanto's patent on the engineered gene in canola does not give it ownership of the entire plant.

Robert Hughes, Monsanto's lawyer, argued that the company wasn't seeking a patent on the entire canola plant, but rather an "ingredient" of the plant, likening the company's patent to that of an inventor who develops a new kind of steel for automobiles and receives a patent for that component rather than the whole car.

Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour was quoted as saying, "According to the Harvard Mouse ruling, I don't think the steel analogy works."

The stories say that although the nine-judge panel's leaning was inscrutable, industry lawyers were peppered with even sharper questions than the other side.

Justice Ian Binnie appeared skeptical of the damage award, asking what additional profit Schmeiser made with Monsanto's seeds than conventional seeds if Schmeiser, as he has testified, didn't spray the company's herbicide.

Monsanto's lawyers were also rebuffed when arguing that Schmeiser's fields contained such a high percentage of genetically engineered plants -- as much as 98 percent -- that no innocent explanation could explain how Monsanto's canola ended up in the farmer's field.

Justice Louis LeBel was quoted as snapping, "There is no evidence that Mr. Schmeiser bought the seeds," to the delight of Schmeiser's supporters in the packed courthouse.

Monsanto and its backers who joined the case -- an industry lobbyist and two farm groups -- argued that invalidating the company's patent could do it and the country economic harm and undermine Canada's patent system.

Anthony Creber told the high court for his client, BioteCanada, which represents biotechnology companies and researchers, was quoted as saying, "You'll have this chilling effect, with severe economic and social costs."

The head of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, farmer Ross Ravelli, was cited as saying that if the patent were not upheld, companies like Monsanto could well go to other countries and stop developing seeds that are suitable for Canada, adding, "What they are trying to develop would not be suited to our area."

In a related story, anti-biotech farmers and scientists rallied at the World Social Forum in Maui Tuesday to mobilize support for Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who is in a legal battle at the Supreme Court of Canada with Monsanto Co. over its patented canola seed.

Maude Barlow, head of Council of Canadians, said of the case that went before the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday was quoted as saying, "Win or lose, this case has significant implications."  

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive