Monsanto vs. Schmeiser - Essay Example

IntroductionMonsanto is an agrarian biotechnology based multinational business. It is the largest manufacturer of herbicide glyphosate and second largest in the provision of genetically engineered seeds. However, the company enjoys controversial reputation; and is subject to several environmental and alter-globalization campaigns (Robin, 2010). This can be attributed to several reasons, for instance, bovine growth hormone genetically engineered seeds, hard-line lawsuits, political intervention, and commercialization of seeds.

Monsanto has been involved in numerous lawsuits related to health damage, dumping toxic waste in the UK, bribing incidents such as Indonesia, incorrect advertising message in France, child labour, farmer suicides etc (Europe, 2011).Government’s Role Governments around the globe are trying to create a regulatory procedure for examining the results of and authorizing novel kinds of genetically modified plants. Most government have made health testing of genetically modified foods mandatory. In addition, food labelling of genetically engineered manufactured foods is legally binding, with a specified limit for contamination (Yount, 2008).

Regulatory authorities have been established to assess if genetically modified plants are environmental friendly, if it is safe to grow and consume the plant. Moreover, these authorities also regulate additives, pesticides, toxins that could ensue in potential damage to health or environment. State inspectors visit farms at regular intervals and evaluate conditions to ascertain compliance. Contravention of laws can ensue in heavy fines, cancellation of licences and even imprisonment.Monsanto vs.

SchmeiserThis proved to be a landmark case in the sphere of biotechnology. Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser, a Candaian canola farmer for patent infringement when unlicensed Roundup Ready canola was discovered on his land. Schmeiser advocated that he had never planted biotech seeds; instead, they reached his fields by accident. Monsanto contended that they possess patent on the gene and the canola cells within it; hence, they can dictate its utilization (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser , 2001).

This entitled them to restrict replanting seeds from the genetically modified plants. As opposed to this, Schmeiser asserted that he could stock and regrow plants from seeds that accidentally flew in his field. The Canadian court declared that the “tests revealed that 95 to 98% of the 1000acres of canola crop was made of Roundup Ready plant. . .The trial judge found that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality (Jenei, 2005).

” It was pronounced that a patented gene or cell is related to the entire plant, even though the plant cannot be patented since it is a life form. This ruling was a blow in the interests of farmers and offered increased protection to biotechnological corporations such as Monsanto. However, the court did not award any compensation for the worth of Schmeiser’s crop. This implies that a farmer will not be monetarily obliged to Monsanto for growing contaminated seeds, assuming they did not gain from the herbicide tolerant gene after Roundup spray.

Therefore, now Monsanto will not profit by initiating court proceedings against farmers.A brief documentary title ‘Frontline’ revealed how farmers utilizing genetically modified seeds marketed by Monsanto resulted in escalated debts and compelled others to submit to the moneylenders due to agreements. This case was considered as a prime illustration of David and Goliath struggle. Monsanto was termed as “Monsatan” and the genetically modified foods as “Franken Food” due to its earlier chemical and existing biotechnological controversies.

Environmentalists and anti-genetic engineering campaigners advocated Schmeiser’s case. He was seen as a worldwide representative against biotechnology. Works CitedEurope, A. F. (2011). News item - Monsanto flouts its own mission statement. Dorking: Alliance For Natural Health.Jenei, S. (2005, Decemeber 16). Muckraking Columnist Takes on Biotech Industry. Patent Baristas .Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser , T-1593-98 (Federal court of Canada March 29, 2001).Robin, M.-M. (2010). The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World's Food Supply.

New York: The New Press.Yount, L. (2008). Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. New York: Infobase Publishing.