Genetically Engineered Crops - Greenpeace Says No

[D H]

REPLY: I was astounded to learn any court would find in favor of such a preposterous lawsuit.

I am astounded that you can't see that the article cited in post #22 for what it is: An incredibly one-sided piece of yellow journalism. The article implies that Monsanto's claims are baseless. Does this make a bit of sense? Look at it this way: Three levels of courts, including the Canadian Supreme Court sided with Monsanto. This certainly has to suggest that Monsanto's claims have some validity.

 

So, what really happened here? What happened here is that a 3 to 4 acre parcel of Schmeiser's 1997 crop contained some genetically modified canola. He sprayed this parcel with Roundup. The canola that survived this spraying was almost 100% pure GM canola. (BTW, it was an astounding 60% that survived this spraying.) Part of this parcel infringed on public right of ways. Monsanto employees tested plants in this area and found them to contain the genetic modification that makes plants immune to Roundup. Monsanto put Schmeiser on notice in 1997 that it appears he had some GM plants and admonished him not to use the plants in that area as seed crop for the next year's planting.

 

Nonetheless, Schmeiser had that little parcel harvested separately from the rest of his crops. He saved the seeds from that parcel over the winter and planted 1000 acres of land with those seeds. As a result, his 1998 crop was 95-98% pure GM canola.

 

The court thought that the initial contamination in 1997 looked mighty suspicious; that too was most likely intentionally done by Schmeiser. The court however could not find enough evidence to say this unequivocally. What happened after that initial contamination is very clear: Schmeiser's spraying turned that 3 to 4 acre parcel into a commercial-quality seed plot. He knew this was the case because (a) Monsanto told him in 1997 this was the case and (b) he intentionally kept that seed isolated and used it as the sole basis for his 1998 crop. In short, he intentionally infringed on Monsanto's patent.

 

 

Court rulings on this case:

Federal Court -- http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

Federal Court of Appeal -- http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html

Supreme Court -- http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

[dr.syntax]

I am astounded that you can't see that the article cited in post #22 for what it is: An incredibly one-sided piece of yellow journalism. The article implies that Monsanto's claims are baseless. Does this make a bit of sense? Look at it this way: Three levels of courts, including the Canadian Supreme Court sided with Monsanto. This certainly has to suggest that Monsanto's claims have some validity.

 

So, what really happened here? What happened here is that a 3 to 4 acre parcel of Schmeiser's 1997 crop contained some genetically modified canola. He sprayed this parcel with Roundup. The canola that survived this spraying was almost 100% pure GM canola. (BTW, it was an astounding 60% that survived this spraying.) Part of this parcel infringed on public right of ways. Monsanto employees tested plants in this area and found them to contain the genetic modification that makes plants immune to Roundup. Monsanto put Schmeiser on notice in 1997 that it appears he had some GM plants and admonished him not to use the plants in that area as seed crop for the next year's planting.

 

Nonetheless, Schmeiser had that little parcel harvested separately from the rest of his crops. He saved the seeds from that parcel over the winter and planted 1000 acres of land with those seeds. As a result, his 1998 crop was 95-98% pure GM canola.

 

The court thought that the initial contamination in 1997 looked mighty suspicious; that too was most likely intentionally done by Schmeiser. The court however could not find enough evidence to say this unequivocally. What happened after that initial contamination is very clear: Schmeiser's spraying turned that 3 to 4 acre parcel into a commercial-quality seed plot. He knew this was the case because (a) Monsanto told him in 1997 this was the case and (b) he intentionally kept that seed isolated and used it as the sole basis for his 1998 crop. In short, he intentionally infringed on Monsanto's patent.

 

 

Court rulings on this case:

Federal Court -- http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

Federal Court of Appeal -- http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html

Supreme Court -- http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

 

 

 

 

REPLY: If you think I have any Faith in court rulings, think again. Please recall BUSH vs GORE in 2000 Supreme Court decision. The rich,powerful, connected almost always win in any court decision. The only times they lose is when public opinion demands that they lose, as in ENRON, LOVE CANAL, CAN`T THINK OF MANY. ...Dr.Syntax

[D H]

Oh, please. You can do better than that. Argue the facts instead of using fallacies.

 

1. Are plants patentable?
   
2. Did Schmeiser willfully and intentionally breed the GM canola as seed stock?
   
3. Did he know / should he have known that the plants from that seed would be immune to Roundup?
   
4. Who is the victim here, Schmeiser or Monsanto?

[Sayonara]

I don't see what is so spectacularly evil about that ostensibly quite straightforward ownership dispute.