The case of the stolen gene

Like over 20,000 other Canadian prairie farmers who have signed on to Monsanto's herbicide-resistant canola program since the genetically engineered seed was introduced in 1996, [Robert] was captivated with the idea of easier, cheaper weed control. The specialized "transgenic" seed, w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAlberta report Vol. 26; no. 34; p. 20
Main Author Yu, Carla
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Edmonton United Western Communications 06.09.1999
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Like over 20,000 other Canadian prairie farmers who have signed on to Monsanto's herbicide-resistant canola program since the genetically engineered seed was introduced in 1996, [Robert] was captivated with the idea of easier, cheaper weed control. The specialized "transgenic" seed, which incorporates a gene from bacteria, can survive multiple applications of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which kills most other plants. Farmers need to spray fewer times, the chemical is less dangerous or expensive than many other herbicides, and weed control is highly effective. All this adds up to savings-and temptation. Monsanto charges a fee of $15 per acre for the one-time use of its seed, and the TUA prohibits farmers from saving and re-planting the seed or selling it to others. But some do anyway, and that has led to a growing black market in pirated seed, an aggressive campaign against the pirates by Monsanto and its field agents, and a good deal of uncertainty over the legal enforceability of genetic patents. Typically, seed developers incorporate research costs and royalties into the price of the seed when they sell it to the supplier. Agrevo, Monsanto's rival in transgenic herbicide resistant seed, sells its "Liberty Link" canola at about the same price as regular seed, but charges more for the key herbicide. This was not a practical or profitable strategy for Monsanto because its patent on the herbicide Roundup expires in the near future. By all appearances, Monsanto would prefer to resolve its alleged patent infringements quietly, inexpensively and out-of-court, rather than engage in public David-versus-Goliath battles with farmers. But inevitably the company ran into one producer who would not co-operate, and it was forced to take legal action. Percy Schmeiser farms near Bruno, Sask., about 75 miles east of Saskatoon. In a lawsuit filed a year ago, Monsanto alleges that in 1997 or earlier Mr. Schmeiser obtained RRC seed from an unnamed licensed grower, made money off the resulting crop and saved the seed for planting in future years without Monsanto's permission.
ISSN:0225-0519