Lawsuit Seeks To Invalidate Monsanto's GMO Patents
By Rady Ananda
03 April, 2011
Countercurrents.org
“A new invention to poison people … is not a patentable invention.” Lowell v.
Lewis, 1817
A landmark lawsuit filed
on March 29 in US federal court seeks to invalidate Monsanto's patents
on genetically modified seeds and to prohibit the company from suing
those whose crops become genetically contaminated.
The Public Patent Foundation
filed suit on behalf of 270,000 people from sixty organic and
sustainable businesses and trade associations, including thousands of
certified-organic farmers.
“As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable,
an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or
sound morals of society,'” notes the complaint in its opening
paragraphs.
The suit points to studies citing harm caused by
Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage,
lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages , and other impacts on human health.
Plaintiffs condemn Monsanto for prohibiting
independent research on its transgenic seeds and for its successful
lobby efforts to ban GM food labeling. Many raise the specter of allergic
reaction to GM foods , proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling. GMO label
laws, currently pending in 14 states , would partially remedy this situation.
(Please contact your state reps.)
The suit also confronts the propaganda that transgenic seeds improve yield
and reduce pesticide use, citing reports on failure to yield and increased
pesticide use . The complaint mentions a 2010 lawsuit by West Virginia after
several studies contradicted yield results claimed in Monsanto's ads. And, it
notes the growth in glyphosate-resistant superweeds .
“Thus, since the harm of transgenic seed is known,
and the promises of transgenic seed's benefits are false, transgenic
seed is not useful for society.”
Should the court agree that transgenic seeds fail
the test of patent law, the suit has the potential to reverse patent
approval on all biotech seeds, impacting BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Dow, and
Syngenta, and others. Genetic contamination of natural plants occurs
where GM seeds are grown, no matter who developed them. Ingesting food
which has had its DNA mucked with is dangerous, regardless of who does
the mucking.
What makes Monsanto different is its US seed
monopoly. Well documented by market authorities, Plaintiffs point out
that, “Over 85-90% of all soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola
grown in the U.S. contains Monsanto's patented genes.”
Through its monopoly, Monsanto has spiked the cost
of seeds in the past decade. Corn seed prices increased 135% and soybean
prices 108%, the suit asserts. As recently as 1997, soybean farmers
spent only 4-8% of their income on seeds, “while in 2009, farmers who
planted transgenic soybeans spent 16.4 percent of their income on
seeds.”
Monsanto has also used its dominant position to limit competition from other
herbicide producers, as well, the suit alleges.
Listing 23 US patents by Monsanto, Plaintiffs also
accuse the firm of “double patenting” thus strengthening its monopoly
over the entire field of transgenic seeds:
“Although the United States patent system allows
improvements on existing inventions, it does not permit a party to
extend its monopoly over a field of invention by receiving a patent that
expires later than and is not patentably distinct from a patent it
already owns….
“Monsanto began applying for patents on glyphosate
tolerance in the mid 1980s. Its first patents on the trait were granted
in 1990 and are now expired. After pursuing its earliest patents on
glyphosate resistance, Monsanto continued to seek and receive patents on
Roundup Ready technology for over two decades….
“In acquiring the transgenic seed patents,
Monsanto unjustly extended its period of patent exclusivity by
duplicating its ownership of a field of invention already covered by
other Monsanto patents.”
The suit then concludes, “Monsanto's transgenic seed
patents are thus invalid for violating the prohibition against double
patenting.”
Genetic Contamination
Here's the mother of all arguments, which makes the
most sense to the lay public. How dare Monsanto sue farmers damaged by
genetic contamination of their crops? That's like a pugilist suing for
damage to his hand after he punches an unwilling victim.
“Plaintiffs cannot be held to have infringed any
Monsanto transgenic seed patent if Plaintiffs become contaminated by
Monsanto's transgenic seed through no intentional act of their own.”
Monsanto admits that its product contaminates natural crops. That must be
why it recently altered its Technology Stewardship Agreement to transfer
liability for its products to the farmers who buy them.
The suit logically asserts that genetic
contamination amounts to trespass on the property of those who do not
want GE seeds, causing them substantial economic harm.
We saw that when Bayer's transgenic seeds
contaminated a third of the US rice supply, causing the European Union
to close its market to US rice. Bayer has faced 6,000 lawsuits due to
that contamination and market closure. On top of lawsuits already lost
or settled, last month, Bayer lost a $137 million lawsuit
by Riceland Foods. The new suit notes that, “The worldwide total
economic loss due to the [2006 GM rice] contamination event was
estimated at $741 million to $1.285 billion.”
Impact on the Biotech Food Industry
The suit argues that because “contamination is
reasonably foreseeable,” Monsanto thus loses its patent rights whenever
it sells its GM seeds. This wouldn't stop it from selling the seed, but
it would allow farmers to save seeds from transgenic crops. No company
can stay in business without repeat customers, especially ones that
spend millions on research and development. And, because transgenic
contamination is not limited to Monsanto's seeds, all biotech seed
companies would likewise face dissolution of their intellectual property
rights.
Other harm from biotechnology does not stop with
Monsanto's seeds or chemicals, either. To protect the world from the
biotech food industry, which extends to animals, patenting life itself
should be banned. This lawsuit might take us closer to a return of that
legal standard, prior to the 2001 High Court decision in J.E.M. Ag
Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International . In that case, Oyez explains :
“Farm Advantage filed a patent invalidity
counterclaim, arguing that sexually reproducing plants, such as
Pioneer's corn plants, are not patentable subject matter within section
101. Farm Advantage maintained that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA)
and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) set forth the exclusive
statutory means for protecting plant life.”
The court disagreed, and thus allowed patents on sexually reproducing life
forms. Of note, the decision was written by ethically-challenged
Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney. Thomas also refused to
recuse himself from a 2010 case involving Monsanto. ( Geertson Seed v
Monsanto involved contamination of natural alfalfa.)
Among the plaintiffs in the PUBPAT suit is Navdanya
International, headed by Dr. Vandana Shiva who has long fought
biopiracy. Genetic patents “have unleashed an epidemic of the piracy of
nature's creativity and millennia of indigenous innovation,” Shiva wrote at
Navdanya .
The new lawsuit couldn't come a moment too soon, given the USDA's recent
decision to allow rice modified with human genes
by Ventria Bioscience. Such approval begs the question: At what point
is the line into cannibalism crossed? Biotech and pharmaceutical
companies have produced several hundred “ pharma crops ”
– food that contains vaccines against a variety of diseases. The FDA
and USDA would have us ignore that this scheme fails to consider
appropriate dosage specific to a person's age, weight and medical
condition, the very foundation of pharmaceutical science.
The biotech industry is out of control, and poses a
significant danger to humans and the environment. PUBPAT's lawsuit marks
a significant step toward restoring a safe, sane and consensual food
supply.
Rady Ananda holds a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State
University's School of Agriculture and is the Editor of Food Freedom and COTO
Report .
A version of this article first posted by Global Research .
http://www.countercurrents.org/ananda030411.htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
