[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SANET-MG] Illegal GE rice contaminates food chain in China
Hi John and other interested parties,
The Chinese situation is clearly not one of patent rights, as I
understand it. The Chinese government and Universities have developed
the rice (here US patents will seem to require sorting out).According to
the NY times report the GM seed was distributed by the University
developing the seed. It seems to me, researchers may be spreading the GM
rice seed to achieve a fait-accomply , pushing the government to
approve and distribute the rice.
In Canada the law agrees that farmers inadvertently polluted with a GM
crop could not harvest the polluted crop but could demand that the seed
supplier come to the farm and pull up the polluting seed. I understand
that is being done in Canola fields because the farmers are threatened
by legal action otherwise. Canada has evolved the legal principle that
the polluted (not the polluter) must pay!
sincerely,joe
John Lozier wrote:
Please, help me understand.
How do the "owners" (patent-holders) of gm expect to retain legal
control of the benefits of this "invention," if they cannot or do not
control its spread? It was suggested years ago that Monsanto strategy
was to pollute the gene pool to the point that genetic modifications
could not be avoided. They would be ubiquitous. This seems to be
happening.
In simple terms, by what legal theory do such "owners" of gm technology
expect to retain legal privileges? Surely, when their genes show up
where not expected, they do not intend to acknowledge liability. How,
then, do they expect to claim property rights?
Law enforcement presupposes that there is widespread or general
compliance. When farmers cannot avoid the contamination, how can there
be general compliance? I heard Percy Schmeiser tell his story at PASA a
couple of years ago. I understood that he had stopped growing canola
because the courts ruled he would be held liable if the Monsanto gene
should happen to show up in his crop. This strikes me as bizarre and
legally untenable. Sooner or later, such a ruling will be
reversed. Monsanto would need to go to court against every farmer. The
courts would want to see evidence of intent.
John Lozier
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
West Virginia University Extension Service
PO Box 6108, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108
Telephone 304-293-6256
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>>> sydney151@SBCGLOBAL.NET 4/13/05 10:37:16 AM >>>
Illegal GE rice contaminates food chain in China
Posted by: Greenpeace International - archive
Posted on: Apr 13, 2005 @ 2:00 am
13 April 2005, Beijing, China -- Greenpeace is calling for an urgent,
international product recall after uncovering the illegal release of a
variety of genetically engineered (GE) rice in China. The GE rice has
not been approved for human consumption and may have contaminated
Chinese rice exports.
 
*****************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html and unsubscribe by
typing in your e-mail address or;
2- Send a message to mailto:listserv@sare.org from the address
subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the
message.
 
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
 
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.