Ruling may give agribusiness greater control of food supply

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case that is likely to expand the power and reach of a U.S. patent. The case, Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 11-796, concerns a farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman, who entered into a contract with Monsanto to purchase its relatively expensive genetically modified soybean seeds that are resistant to Roundup herbicide. Like 90 percent of U.S. soybean farmers, when the crop grew, he sprayed the herbicide that killed the weeds but not the soybeans. The contract prohibits Bowman from reusing the seeds from that crop for another season.

The problem arose when he bought cheaper seeds from a grain elevator to plant a less predictable late-season crop. The grain elevator product is typically used for animal feed but not to grow crops. His choice was based on the assumption that what he purchased was probably mixed with second-generation GMO seeds and regular seeds and that much of the crop likely would still be resistant to Roundup. It worked as planned. He did this for several years and was eventually sued by Monsanto, which won a judgment for $84,456.

The Supreme Court decision, now expected in June, will set the tone on the power and reach of patents covering genetically modified, self-replicating organisms. The implications are profound. Both the Obama administration and the Supreme Court justices appear to be highly protective of big-business interests that claim patent ownership of generation after generation of an organism if its genetic footprint has been altered. The justification is that if patent protection is inadequate, biotechnology businesses will not invest to develop new products. It would harm the business sector and rob society of the benefits of progress served by science.

Society, at large, has come to accept this way of thinking for nonreplicating technology such as hybrid cars, computer tablets and solar panels. We cannot however, blindly apply the same standards to plants and animals. If I develop a way to genetically modify any dog, cat, cow, horse, pig or goat so that now each has a crimson spot between its eyes, do I then own the rights to all of these creatures and generation after generation of their offspring so long as the modification persists? What if I genetically modified the seeds of every plant to have the same crimson spot? Is that mine, too?

For many ancient peoples, even the concept of landownership was strange and unthinkable. "How could one claim ownership of a piece of the earth or the waters?" they argued. Modern society is now well accustomed to conventions around real estate and water rights, but society is on a slippery slope and now on the verge of yielding control of our food supply to agribusiness.

Perhaps farmer Bowman did violate Monsanto’s patent rights by purchasing seed meant for feed with the intention of benefiting from the portion that was second-generation Roundup resistant when he planted his late-season crop. Yet, in the grand scheme, science in the hands of a greedy few cannot recklessly claim ownership of what nature in its wisdom created over millennia by simply modifying a few of her genes.

———

Ira Zunin, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., is medical director of Manakai o Malama Integrative Healthcare Group and Rehabilitation Center and CEO of Global Advisory Services Inc. Please submit your questions to info@manakaiomalama.com.