I am still reeling from reading other reports of this same Canadian government position. The Canadians are again the stalking horse for the US-dominated bio-ag-chem companies. Watch the Australians piling on as well. An allied technology (GURT) has been long researched by scientists in Australia but not yet commercialized. Looks like the big push is here.

The orcs are on the march again........must be a second ring somewhere...

Is there something here that I don't understand? The only seeds affected would be commercial seed sold by some multi-national agribusiness. Why can't farmers continue to grow the older and established varieties, that have not been genetically engineered, and continue to save seed?

If the "terminator" seeds, also called "genetic use restriction technologies," or Gurts, spread their genetic material to the older, heirloom type varieties, that would be genetic pollution, and grounds for a law suit, I would think.

Yeah, but a lawsuit from which side? ha. If that terminator gene gets loose we all may end up like the dinosaurs, meat eaters till the end....

Eric, I believe as the law stands now, if GM plants are found to be in a farmer's field - even if he/she didn't plant the seeds from which they grew, but they were spread by wind, contaminated seed, etc. - the farmer has to pay the owner of technology, ie, the seeds (Monsanto, Bayer, etc.) a fixed amount for every acre of land in that field. Terminator seeds are GM seeds.
The question arises then why do the farmers accept the technology? There are various answers to that, I think mostly related to the way farmers are targeting by the GM industry. In western countries, the GM industry has made quite good use of the power of the press. There is much misinformation disseminated by the GMO industry and with such huge support from government and with such willing cooperation by the mainstream press, farmers actually think they are getting a good deal by using the GM seeds. For example, it's been (and still is) trumpeted in the media that the use of GM seeds will decrease pesticide use, and therefore is better for people who work with the crops and the people who eat the food and for the environment - birds, insects, microorganisms, etc. The Beneficent Father model. Farmers hear this and read about it and listen to their farm bureaus (who have listened to the USDA who have listened to the government who have listened to the GM industry) and take it as gospel, not realizing that the supposed benefits were only theory. Based on this theory (and other factors), 85% of soybean crops and 33% of corn crops are planted to GM varieties in the US. And we know that the decreased use of pesticide theory was only theory, because with the Benbrook Report released last year, we realize that after 9 years of GM crops, the theory didn't hold - pesticide use has actually increased with the use of GM crops. But ask yourself, have you ever heard that fact trumpeted in the media? It doesn't get press, because it's thought to be not in the best interests of the GMO seed companies, so the willing press tends to not report the story.
That's one example.
In developing countries, the press will be involved, but the dissemination/deception also takes other forms. For one example, USAID recently dropped its package of aid of 19,000 tonnes of corn to Angola, because Angola banned the importation of GMOs and wants to mill the grain before it is dispersed within the country. This is because, once in the country, as has happened to the Mexican corn industry, the unmilled GM seeds will be taken up by unknowing farmers and planted - and the farmer doesn't own those seeds and resulting plants, the biotech company that "created" the seeds - that holds the patient to the seeds - has ownership. The idea is that the seeds can and will spread quickly over the course of a few years and how do you get the seeds out of the system once they are in? Bingo! Almost instant job security (for the GM industry.) And add to that the GM plants will hybridize with native plants, effectively making them all GM plants.
The press reports on an issue like the Angola issue tend toward headlines reading something like, "Angola to allow its people to starve." Not really; they're trying to keep their economy functioning for the benefit of their own people and not for the great benefit of the GM industry. And remember, that besides the cost of buying the new seed each year (and if the GM companies can sue the farmer for any plants found in the field, who would want to risk that and try to plant purely native varieties that may be contaminated with GM seed?) there is the cost of the pesticide to use on the GM crops - in the case of Monsantos Roundup Ready products, conveniently provided by Monsanto. Also very few actually reap the benefit of any increased yield because efficient soybean growing, for example, requires a lot of land, which leaves out small farmers. Soybeans yield little gain for local economies because most of the soy is exported, and much of the profits end up in the hands of relatively few speculators, growers, farm equipment suppliers, exporters, and shipping companies, many of them foreign. Not a pretty picture for the sovereignty of the smaller nations. Many, many farmer suicides are beginning to result in lesser developed countries, attributed to farmers not being able to pay for inputs and they lose the products as a default for input payments.
Farmers and others buy other misinformation. I've read a 1000 times where some official in some government has said that the GM foods have been found to be completely safe for human health and/or that "no recorded illnesses have been found due to consumption of GM foods." Are the foods safe? It's been estimated that a trillion meals have been served using GM foods and yet there are only 10 published studies on the health effects of GM foods (I didn't leave off any zeros on that number, by the way.) 6 of the 10 studies were funded, either partially or completely by Monsanto, and all 6 found no ill health effects from eating the foods. 3 of the other 4 did find negative health effects from the consumption of the food. As a result of one study, the well-respected researcher conducting the study was dismissed from his position shortly after his findings were made public. And have any ill effects been found as a result of eating GM foods? The sad fact is that no one's looking for any ill effects to health, so no one's finding any. So, in effect, theyÂre arenÂt any! IsnÂt the way science is used currently wonderful?
The GM industry is very powerful and is using every means at its disposal to spread its profit-bearing technology to all parts of the world. Do you remember the recent press coverage about Monsanto agreeing to pay $1.5 million in fines after admitting that company employees paid more than $700,000 in bribes to bribed Indonesian government officials, aiming to circumvent environmental controls for genetically modified cotton? The government "buys" the idea and it becomes what the farmers do.
Oh, and you might be interested to learn that Monsanto has just paid $1.4 billion for Seminis, the global leader in the vegetable and fruit seed industry. Seminis had sales last year of $526 million, representing 20 percent of the 2004 global commercial fruit and vegetable market, and supplied more than 3,500 seed varieties in nearly 60 species to commercial fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, distributors, and wholesalers in more than 150 countries around the world. Monsanto says that it is cashing in on the consumer trend toward healthy foods, and that they have no plans for Âbioteching fruits and vegetables in the foreseeable future. What do you think?

The key question remains, if genetic material from a GMO plant gets into an established heirloom crop, and disrupts the farmer who is attempting to grow a traditional variety, who has to pay for the damage caused by genetic pollution? If the farmer states that his intention was to raise a traditional, established variety of heirloom tomatos, and his ability to do so has been compromised by genetic pollution, it seems to me that he has the basis for a successful lawsuit.

Name me one lawsuit that has been successfully brought to resolution in spite of many reported cases of contamination. The courts have consistently ruled that the holders of gm patents are not liable for downstream negative effects. There are no willful actions on the part of the patent holders.

Mikkle, nice summary argument. Over the past few years we've covered all those subjects in specific and general threads dedicated to gmos here on the SOE.

Eric, there's a case before the Saskatchewan courts filed by 2 Saskatchewan organic canola farmers who maintain that Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science's GM canola, which have become pervasive throughtout the canola-growing section of the province, has made it impossible for them to grow and market organic canola. It'll be interesting to see how that case will turn out, after the Percy Schmeiser case (another Sask farmer) was decided in favor of Monsanto. Interestingly, Percy's wife has filed a claim of another sort against Monsanto asking for damages to cover the cost of removal of Monsanto's GM canola from her garden. I've included text decribing the case:
Schmeiser's wife takes on Monsanto

Louise Schmeiser has filed papers with a small claims court in Humboldt seeking $140 in damages from Monsanto.
Schmeiser says that is what it cost her to remove Monsanto's Roundup Ready Canola plants from her organic garden
and nearby shelter belt.

"Monsanto said that if anyone sprays Roundup on any plant and it doesn't die... they will come and remove it," says
Percy Schmeiser, who is acting as Louise's legal counsel. "They failed to do it."

Schmeiser says the case has been adjourned until next March to give Monsanto's lawyers time to prepare a defense.

Seven years ago, Monsanto took Percy Schmeiser to court. The chemical giant said Schmeiser was growing the company's
genetically modified canola without permission, and without paying for the right to do so.

The Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto's patent was valid, but Schmeiser was also victorious as he did not have to pay
Monsanto's Technology Use Fee of $15./acre, profits, damages and Monsanto's legal costs.

"The Supreme Court ruled Monsanto owns and controls the gene, so the liability issue now follows the flow of the gene,"
says Schmeiser. "Monsanto is totally liable for contamination and pollution of anybody's field now."

Monsanto representatives refused to comment on the case.

Eric, I think this clip from the linked article contains the answer you're looking for.

"Currently, farmers who buy genetically engineered seeds must sign a
Technology Use Agreements. These agreements shield the patent company from
liability for contamination and place the full liability burden on farmers.
Farmers contend these agreements essentially pit farmer against farmer when
conflicts arise."

I believe the reasooning at the moment seems to favor gene flow determining ownership. It goes something like this: if a biotech company develops a GM tomato by inserting viral, fish, etc. DNA into a tomato and the genes flow into your heritage tomato, your tomato is no longer a heritage tomato. It's an 'new' tomato because it has been developed by gene splicing technology, for example. The biotech company has the patent on that life form (as ridiculus as it may seem) and has the right to the new plant(s). You can't protect your heritage tomato with a similar patent, since that tomato has been developed by 'nature' and isn't the product of new technology.

Althea points out the case of farmers in Vermont, Montana and the Dakotas attempting to shift the responsibility for genetic contamination to the biotech companies. There are some great examples in success in this arena in Europe. Danish law places responsibility on GM farmers to maintain farming practices that prevent GM contamination of organic and conventional crops, and assigns liability to GM farmers whose crops contaminate organic or conventional crops. Liability claims are paid out from a special compensation fund established by growers of GM crops. In Germany, the law provides for compensation of conventional and organic farmers, where they are accidentally contaminated. Liability is paid from a compensation fund,which will be individual or collective on a case-by-case basis. Similar situation in Italy. Let's hope this kind of intelligence spreads here, as well.

schulz case has been post phoned until March as well.
The professor from Buffalo that wanted to install an art exhibit in Boston where food could be tested to see if it was GM or not. A very simple lab exhibit. Unfortunatly, while he was at home working on the installation, his wife of 24 years has aheart attack and dies. In a panic he calls 911, the police arrive,see lab equipment all over the place and he gets arrested for bioterriorism.

Thanks for the info about European laws mikkle. Are they not the same as here, ie. placing the burden of liability on the farmers rather than on the biotech company?

Also, I read New Zealand has joined Canada & Australia in the promotion of GURTS.

You're right, Althea, the (GMO) farmers still bear the burden of the GMO responsibility, but that responsibility acts as a deterent to irresponsible farming practices that can easily cause GMO contamination. It also gives a choice to farmers to make their decisions locally, and, I suppose, in a democratic fashion. The biotech companies can still sell their seed, but much of the cheerleading of the press that we see here won't be effective there, because the restrictions against uncontrolled proliferation of GMOs are in place. Farmers can listen to the hype, but they have to be wary of what they're doing and their farming practices must protect the environment. The EU is currently fighting the US, Canada, and Argentina on barrier to free trade issues at the WTO, and I suspect many of the EU decisions on GMOs are made with one eye on the very strong and influencial anti-GM movement that exists in Europe and one eye on the legal WTO wrangling.

Thanks mikkle. That makes sense.

This is hot off the cyber press:

Correction\*/Environment: Ban Endures On Terminator Seeds Inter Press Service (Johannesburg) February 11, 2005 Posted to the web February 11, 2005 Stephen Leahy Brooklin, Canada An international moratorium on the use of controversial "terminator technology" in genetically engineered crops survived efforts to overturn it at a United Nations interim meeting on the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bangkok Friday.

Does the USDA still get 5% royalties from profits resulting from terminator technology?