MARTIN O'MALLEY:
The Kafkaesque world of Percy Schmeiser
CBC News Viewpoint | May 21, 2004 | More from Martin O'Malley
"I wouldn't wish this living hell on anybody," Percy Schmeiser told me the evening before the Supreme Court's momentous decision on Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto.
Still, Schmeiser was "pretty upbeat" as he anticipated the top court's decision. Asked if he'd have a party to celebrate a decision in his favour, Schmeiser said, "That's an understatement. There'll be a world party. I'll probably have a drink – maybe two."
Alas, the David-and-Goliath battle waged over the past six years has ended, and David has lost. Percy said his legal fees have reached about $400,000, of which some $100,000 has been paid with the help of donations from groups and individuals around the world.
"They came in amounts from $1,000 to $10," Schmeiser said. "If I didn't have that I wouldn't have been able to do it."
The heart of the matter, it has been said in the documents, is the matter of patent law and Monsanto's right to protect its invention. This raises huge issues such as "intellectual property and the patenting of "higher forms of life."
I believe the heart of the matter is blowing in the wind. Did Schmeiser deliberately plant and harvest Monsanto's "glophosate-resistant plant" in the spring of 1997? Schmeiser has consistently said he did not, saying the Monsanto seeds blew onto his 1,400-acre farm near Bruno, east down the highway from Saskatoon.
Court documents explaining the 5-4 split decision that favours Monsanto
mentioned an earlier court decision by the Federal Court when it said:
"The Federal Court judge didn't disagree that the Monsanto seeds may
have blown on to Schmeiser's farm. The judge did agree, however, that it
was Schmeiser's obligation to destroy whatever Monsanto canola resulted
from the blown seeds."
What it means in this Kafkaesque scenario is that farmers are responsible for seeds blown onto their farms, possibly contaminating their crops, and the farmers also are responsible for removing the invading seeds.
When I visited Schmeiser at his farm in 1999, he tried to explain the complexities of patent law by describing what he called his "scrub bull theory."
"What if a farmer has a scrub bull? And his neighbour's got a herd of purebred registered cows?" Schmeiser argued. "Through negligence, the bull gets over the fence and impregnates his neighbour's cows. Now the guy with the scrub bull says those calves are his. The cows too! Same thing, eh?"
That's not how the courts have seen it over the past six years. And it's not how the Supreme Court regarded it on Friday, May 21, 2004. Referring to an earlier Federal Court ruling, Schmeiser quoted the judge in that decision as saying, "The bull farmer didn't have a patent on the bull."
Schmeiser wondered what would have happened if he patented a poison, then let it fly in the wind to contaminate surrounding farms. "What if I didn't like my neighbour? What if I tossed a handful of my patented poison in the wind so it contaminated his farm?"
The top court admits that the origin of Schmeiser's genetically modified canola seeds is unclear. "They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser's land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields."
What happens next? Hard to say, but Schmeiser, 73, and his wife, Louise, 72, face substantial costs, even though the Supreme Court ruled that he does not have to pay Monsanto the $19,000 the biotech giant said he owes them from the profit he made on the Monsanto canola. The top court explained that the profit was what it would have been had Schmeiser planted and harvested ordinary canola.
The bottom line, according to the Supreme Court, is that "The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established."
Schmeiser has said there probably will be more cases like his. During severely wet planting seasons, when machinery can't get into the fields, he explained, some farmers have seeded their crops by dropping seeds from an airplane. He thinks this could lead to a lot more Schmeiser vs. Monsanto confrontations.
Monsanto doubtless underestimated Schmeiser's tenacity. Schmeiser twice climbed Mount Everest, but came short of reaching the peak. The night before the Supreme Court decision he said he recently received a letter from one of his Sherpas saying the hat Schmeiser wore on one of his Everest attempts did make it to the top.
"The Sherpa said he brought my hat to the top on a later Everest expedition. He said the only problem is that I wasn't under it."
LETTERS:
Martin O'Malley has given a correct picture of what has happened to Mr. Schmeiser, and what happens to Canadians when they try to protect themselves against a large multinational company in Canada. This SCOC ruling has made the farmer responsible for the vagaries of the wind and the voracious multiplication of Monsanto's product. The farmer is solely responsible for his/her crops, and is now responsible for a GM product, that through no fault of their own, infects their crops. Farmers don't have enough concerns already, now they are expected to 'remove seeds and plants from their fields that are GM? What responsibility does Monsanto have in this scenario? Obviously their only responsibility is to make money.
When the Federal Government uses our tax dollars to support Monsanto in the production of GM wheat, is this decision a surprise to anyone? Canadians and Canadian farmers be damned--we know which side our government, and therefore the SCOC, is on. All Canadians lost with this decision. We seem to be the only ones held accountable for the actions of others.
Rebecca Gingrich | Princeton, Ontario
^TOP
|
|
 |
 MENU |
|
|
| ABOUT VIEWPOINT: |
Viewpoint is CBC.ca's place for informed opinion and commentary. Our goal is to provide a range of informed perspectives from around the world and here at home on issues of interest to Canadians. All material published in the Viewpoint section is subject to CBC’s journalistic policy, standards and practices.
Writing for Viewpoint
We accept queries from people with significant expertise in their field and previous writing experience. We are interested in domestic and international contributions. We do not accept unsolicited finished pieces.
If you want to contribute to Viewpoint, please send your query to letters@cbc.ca with VIEWPOINT in the subject line and please include three samples of your published work. Columns are typically 800 words in length and focus on timely issues, events or personal stories with wide appeal. Please familiarize yourself with our content before submitting your ideas. Only those accepted will be contacted.
|
|
| FEEDBACK: |
|
|
| BIOGRAPHY: |
MARTIN O'MALLEY
FREELANCE WRITER
At least one generation of Canadians knows the line, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Pierre Elliott Trudeau made it famous, but the line belongs to Martin O'Malley, who wrote it when he was with The Globe and Mail. He's written eight books, his latest "More than Meets the Eye: Watching Television Watching Us." He wrote it with John Pungente, a world authority on media literacy.
|
|
| MORE: |
|
|
|
