When genetically engineered (GE) crops were introduced onto the market over a decade ago, the rules of the game changed for many farmers. Farmers who used biotechnology no longer owned their seeds. Instead, they leased the patented technology for one growing season from biotech giants like Monsanto. And they were forbidden from saving seeds for the next year, as farmers have since forever.
The emergence of GE crops signalled a major shift in the balance of power on the farm. When farmers bought GE crops, they also gave permission to biotech companies to visit their farm and test their fields to assess whether the company's proprietary technology was being used appropriately. Farmers who didn't grow GE crops, but whose crop became contaminated from neighboring farms, became vulnerable to patent litigation. In a highly celebrated case, Monsanto accused Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser of using its Roundup Ready technology, even though Schmeiser had never bought the seeds. You can read more about Percy's long-standing fight with Monsanto.
Seven years ago, IATP published a paper outlining the legal risks for farmers posed by GE crops. Since then, the Center for Food Safety published an important paper documenting over 100 Monsanto lawsuits against farmers for patent infringement.
This week, a coalition of farm groups from around the country, including IATP, sent a letter to Senate leaders in support of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S.1145). The bill would revise the standard for "willfulness" in the violation of patent law. This is particularly applicable to farmers who have had their crops contaminated with GE material from neighboring farms without their consent, but still found themselves in court. The bill would also restrict the ability of the plaintiff (biotech company) to select venues. By selecting far away venues, farmers have often had to travel a great distance from their farm to defend themselves in court. This has been used as yet another tactic to pressure farmers to settle these cases.
The record has been abysmal at the federal level in terms of protecting farmers' rights in relation to GE crops. Several states, including North and South Dakota and Indiana, have passed their own protections with regards to patent infringement. The Maine legislature just this week passed legislation that would prevent lawsuits for patent infringement against farmers whose farms have been contaminated with GE material from neighboring farms.
These steps at the state and federal level to protect farmers from GE crop patent litigation are long overdue. The next prudent step would be a system that holds biotech companies liable for economic damages, when their technology contaminates crops, and farmers lose out on organic or non-GE price premiums.
