Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Michael <michael AT metalab.unc.edu>]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Jeremy Portzer wrote:

> have -- why is there a common assumption (at least among
> leftists/liberals) that "bio-engineered" or "genetically modified" foods
> are such a horrible thing.  After all, they allow for a number of things

Actually, opposition to them is just as common among right-end wingnuts.  

There are two main arguments against them with which I'm immediately 
familiar.  First, as a health concern - we aren't sure whether the 
modifications have any effect on those who consume the crops.  Me, I don't 
consider this a huge issue.  I grew up consuming all sorts of crap and 
I've yet to drop dead from it.  Heck, I even smoke - I can't get too 
worked up about a tomato.

The other argument, and the one that gets my sympathy, is that modified 
crops - always patented by their designers - can very easily spread to a 
wider area than just the fields in which they're planted.  At this point, 
farmers end up being held liable for theft (both of physical property and 
via patent infringement).  It sounds absolutely absurd, but it can and 
does happen.  A farmer in Canada just lost a case before that nation's 
highest court; in his example, seeds from a neighboring farm growing 
patented GM crops were carried on the wind to his farm, where some of 
those seeds germinated amongst his non-GM crops of the same plant.  The 
company that designed the GM crop in question sued him for patent 
infringement.

Now, that case isn't cut-and-dried (no pun intended).  It was over the use 
of Roundup Ready canola, and the farmer in question apparently used 
Roundup specifically to isolate any uninvited RR canola growing in his 
fields, then saved and used seeds from those plants the next year.  
However, he didn't use RR on the crop for weed control when he grew it, 
and he sold the canola as feed grain, not as a premium foodstuff. So, he 
went out of his way to grow a GM crop he didn't buy the rights to grow 
and sell, but he also didn't get any benefit out of it whatsoever.  It 
raises the question of why he went out of his way to isolate the crop, 
but having grown up where I did, I can tell you right now that a farmer 
(or a casual gardener, for that matter) who isn't sure what's in her or 
his field is sure as heck going to find out, and more power to them.  
It's their farm.

A lot of people point to this case as an example of Big Scary Bad 
Companies and Innocent Farmers, when it's a lot more complex than that.  
What /I/ consider scary about this case are the possibilities it raises.  
I think it's still a hypothetical, but it's one well worth thinking 
about:  if seeds from a neighboring farm, licensed to grow a GM crop, can 
be accidentally deposited on a nearby farm that /isn't/ licensed to grow 
a GM crop, who's at fault?  Who's liable for prevention of the unlicensed 
growth of a patented crop?  Whose rights take precedence:  the right of 
the farmer to grow a crop that /isn't/ a licensed product without having 
to take extraordinary steps to make certain of this, or the right of the 
company to license a neighboring farmer to grow a crop without having to 
take extraordinary steps to prevent the spread of their seeds?  What 
will happen to the specialty organic farmer down the road when a GM 
food seed blows onto their farm and they end up with GM tomatoes?  
Will they get sued?  Will their whole market suffer because of the 
mistake?  Does the farmer's right to farm overpower Monsanto's right to 
protect their IP?  

Apparently, in Canada, it doesn't.  Although one can even get down and 
quibble over who "won" or "lost" the case in question (the court found the 
farmer at fault but found that he hadn't gained, and ordered each side to 
absorb their own costs in the case and move on - they effectively called 
it a tie and sent them home), there are some really unpleasant scenarios 
it brings to mind.  Until those sorts of questions are worked out, I'd 
feel a lot better about buying a tomato if I feel like the process that 
put it in my hand had some semblance of fairness.  If Monsanto wants to 
sell a patented, GM crop and only license certain people to grow it and 
sell it at a premium because it cures warts, fine by me - they're a 
business, inventing stuff and selling it is kind of what they do and, 
believe it or not, us crazy lefties like making money just as much as 
crazy righties and even as much as folks with no particular agenda.  
However, before they do, I think the onus should be on /them/ to safeguard 
their IP.  If they screw up or if the wind blows the wrong way on the 
right day, sucks for them.

Now, if somehow defending the right of a farmer to grow what they want on 
their land and leaving the choice of whether to participate in a 
licensed-to-grow scheme regarding GM crops is somehow liberal (though I am 
wonderfully liberal and proud of it), and goes against the 
rights-of-the-individual-in-a-big-impersonal-world rhetoric of old-school 
conservatives, then obviously I've not been reading my guidebook.  Any 
errata anyone has would be most welcome.

(A quick source on the Canadian case of Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser can 
be had here:  http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news.asp?editorial_id=58482.  
The article is more or less balanced, though it seems to lean a little 
towards the rights of the farmer.  This might, in fact, be due to being a 
farming site.  Call me crazy, I'm just saying.  However, I wanted a 
farming site's take on it.))

-- 
Robust McManlyPants, AKA                        "Get off my desk
Michael Williams                             before you get them 
http://www.ibiblio.org/michael           demonic spirits on me!"
michael AT ibiblio.org                                  --co-worker