Corporate Crops: Biotechnology, Agriculture, and the Struggle for Control

Notes

Notes Introduction 1. Monsanto’s technology agreements are referred to differently in different regions. In order to be consistent with interview responses, each chapter uses the terminology specific to the region discussed. Chapter 1 1. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for Anthropologica for this wording. Chapter 2 1. The safeguard clause allows a member state to “provisionally restrict or prohibit the use or sale of an approved GMO if there is ‘new or additional information . . . or scientific knowledge’ that gives it ‘detailed grounds’ that the GMO ‘constitutes a risk to human health or the environment’” (Article 23 of the EU Directive 2001/18/EC, as cited in Pew, 2005:16). 2. Available online at http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/59-2005/bill-text/ FRDJ0200.pdf. Chapter 3 1. Telephone communication with SAFRR employee, 2006. 2. Producers secure a premium for producing these specialty canolas. 3. The discovery in Canada of a canola that had become resistant to three different herbicides was given a great deal of coverage by environmental organizations (see, e.g., Beyond Pesticides, 2001). 252 Notes to Pages 87–139 4. The canola check-off is a per-tonne fee deducted at the point of sale. The SCDC check-off deduction is mandatory, but funds are refundable upon request. 5. The Manitoba website notes Monsanto asserts the conditions of its TUA, but that a grower considering keeping a stand of volunteers should contact Monsanto . It was reported to me that Monsanto’s concession was to allow producers to keep the stand, with the purchase of the $15/acre TUA. This choice is difficult if the crop is only partially successful (http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/news/ wet/volunteercanola.html). Chapter 5 1. Approximately three months of negotiations ensued after the original request , and it appeared that further time investment would not be fruitful. 2. These included the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Canadian Seed Trade Association, the Canadian Seed Institute, and the Grain Growers of Canada. 3. Re Application of Abitibi Co. (1982), 62 C.P.R. (2d). 4. The following two paragraphs are drawn largely from Roberts (1999) and Atkinson (2005). 5. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1989]. 1 S.C.R. 1623. 6. Monopoly control is granted in part on condition of detailed instructions provided so that at the end of the monopoly term someone “skilled in the art” could replicate the invention. The Supreme Court rejected the deposit of seed specimens as complying with this requirement (Roberts, 1999:34). 7. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002]. S.C.R. 45. 8. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256. 9. Ibid. (Trial Proceedings, June 5, 2000 at 278). 10. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256 at para. 29. 11. Ibid. (Trial Proceedings, June 5, 2000 at 870). 12. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256 at para 53. 13. Facts are as accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004) [2004], 1 S.C.R. 902 at para. 59–63, 2004 SCC 34. 14. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256 at para. 12. 15. Ibid. at para. 23. 16. Ibid. at para. 80. 17. Ibid. at para. 83. 18. Ibid. at para. 89. 19. Ibid. at para. 114. 20. Ibid. at para. 115. 21. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256 at para. 26. Notes to Pages 139–149 253 22. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004) [2004], 1 S.C.R. 902 at para. 60, 2004 SCC 34. 23. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256 at para. 119. 24. Ibid. (Trial Proceedings, June 5, 2000, at 1118). 25. Ibid. at 1108. 26. Ibid. 27. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) [2001], 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.), 2001 FCT 256 at para. 91. 28. Ibid. at para. 92. 29. Ibid. at para. 125. 30. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2002) [2003] 2 F.C.R. 165...