At the end of March a group of individuals and organizations associated with organic food sued Monsanto in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The full suit is available from the Public Patent Foundation, which “Represents the Public’s Interests Against Undeserved Patents and Unsound Patent Policy” and which brought the suit on behalf of the 60 plaintiffs. There is also a PubPat press release and many summaries around the web, for example at Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds. Monsanto responded on a company blog.
David’s claim against Goliath is intended to ensure that Monsanto cannot sue for patent infringement should one of its genes turn up in seeds or plants produced by organic or heirloom growers in the US.
The merits of the claims are not my concern, and I was reluctant even to note the lawsuit here, because any discussion of GMOs rapidly deteriorates into the same old same old, but talking it over with colleagues it is clear that there is a fundamental issue of agricultural biodiversity at stake.
Farmers may choose to grow GM varieties for all sorts of reasons. As the GM varieties spread they edge out pre-existing varieties, as “improved” varieties always seem to do. In technically-advanced farming systems, those pre-existing varieties are likely to be improved themselves, rather than the farmer landraces we normally bang on about here, but that doesn’t make them any less valuable. Farmers who want to grow those varieties rather than GM varieties will be hard pressed to find them. Seed merchants who want to produce those varieties rather than GM varieties may be reluctant if there’s any chance of cross-fertilisation and a visit from corporate heavies, as will the farmers when they come to market their harvest.
The issue here is not the safety or otherwise of GMOs. It is not about the way Monsanto behaves (although it is possible that if Monsanto behaved differently, the suit would not be needed). It is about being able to grow what you want to grow.