Page 7 of 74
OB tes Ny E\N? MONSANTO HAS A MONOPOLY ON LIFE possession of seeds or plants containing a patented gene, the burden is on the farmer to prove a that s/he is not infringing the company's monopoly patent. "In Monsanto's world, we're all criminals unless a court rules oth- erwise," observes Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group's Mexico office. "This will come as shocking news to indigenous farmers in Mexico, whose maize fields have been contaminated with DNA from genetically modified plants, and to farmers everywhere who are fighting to prevent genetically modified organisms from tres- passing in their fields," said Ribeiro. Monsanto's newspaper ads in Chiapas, Mexico, are already warning peasants that if they are found using GM seed illegally, they risk fines and even prison. "No doubt Monsanto will say this is a victory for their stockholders, but its victory will be shortlived," said Pat Mooney. "This ruling will unite farmers and others opposed to corporate control of food and life, and galvanize civil society to issue out of the courts and back to ans," said Mooney. (Source: ETC Group news release, 21 May 2004, http://www.etcgroup.org) Cc society and farmers' organisations worldwide reacted with outrage on 21 May to the 5-4 decision by the Canadian Supreme Court, affirm- ing Monsanto's right to prosecute farmers who are found to have GM crops growing on their land, whether they wanted them or not. Monsanto Company accused Saskatchewan farmers Percy and Louise Schmeiser of violating the company's patent on genetically modified canola (oilseed rape). Percy and Louise did not want Monsanto's GM canola seeds that invaded their property, and they did not try to benefit from the herbicide-tolerant trait in the GM seed (that is, they didn't spray Roundup weedkiller), but still Monsanto prosecuted them for patent infringement and demanded a portion of their income. The Schmeisers waged a courageous, seven-year battle against Monsanto that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision effectively nullifies the Court's 2002 decision that higher life-forms, including plants, are not patentable subject matter. According to the 21 May decision, a patent on a gene or cell can be infringed by a farmer's use of a plant or seed into which the patented material has been incorporated. "Monsanto has won an inflatable patent today. They can now say that their rights extend to anything its genes get into, whether plant, animal or human," said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group, one of the interveners in the case. The Canadian Court goes even further than notoriously monopoly-friendly US patent law because it finds that a gene patent extends to any higher organism that contains the patented gene. "Under this ruling, spreading GM pollution appears to be recognized as a viable corporate owner- ship strategy," said Mooney. Monsanto's GM seed technology accounted for over 90% of the global area planted with GM seeds last year. The Court's ruling means that if a farmer is in NEW STUN WEAPONS TO TARGET CROWDS Wires that can incapacitate crowds of people by sweeping a lightning- like beam of electricity across them are being readied for sale to military and police forces in the USA and Europe. At present, commercial stun guns target one person at a time, work only at close quarters and have no effect on vehicles. The new breed of non-lethal weapons can be used on many people at once and oper- ate over far greater distances. But the advent of wireless stun weapons has horrified human rights groups, who are appalled by the fact that no independent safety tests have been carried out, and con- cerned by their potential for indiscriminate use. Robin Coupland of the Red Cross says they risk becoming a new instrument of torture, and Brian Wood of Amnesty International says the long-range stun guns could "inflict pain and other suffering on innocent bystanders". (Source: New Scientist, 19 June 2004) Secon ha) EGE lt AB Le- tere Towbd 1 6 = NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST — SEPTEMBER 2004