High-stakes fight over genetically engineered seeds at high court
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vernon Hugh Bowman seems comfortable with the old way of doing things, right down to the rotary-dial telephone he said he was using in a conference call with reporters.
But the 75-year-old Indiana farmer figured out a way to benefit from a high-technology product - soybeans that are resistant to weed-killers - without always paying the high price that such genetically engineered seeds typically bring. In so doing, he ignited a legal fight with seed-giant Monsanto Co. that has now come before the Supreme Court, with arguments taking place Tuesday.
The court case poses the question of whether Bowman's actions violated the patent rights held by Monsanto, which developed soybean and other seeds that survive when farmers spray their fields with the company's Roundup brand weed-killer. The seeds dominate American agriculture, including in Indiana, where more than 90 percent of soybeans are "Roundup Ready."
Monsanto has attracted a bushel of researchers, universities and other agribusiness concerns to its side because they fear a decision in favor of Bowman would leave their own technological innovations open to poaching. The company's allies even include a company that is embroiled in a separate legal battle with Monsanto over one of the patents at issue in the Bowman case.
The Obama administration also backs Monsanto, having earlier urged the court to stay out of the case because of the potential for far-reaching implications for patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.
Monsanto's opponents argue that the company has tried to use patent law to control the supply of seeds for soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. The result has been a dramatic rise in seed prices and reduced options for farmers, according to the Center for Food Safety. The group opposes the spread of genetically engineered crops and says their benefits have been grossly overstated.
"It has become extremely difficult for farmers to find high-quality conventional seeds," said Bill Freese, the center's science policy analyst.
Consumer groups and organic food producers have fought Monsanto over genetically engineered farm and food issues in several settings. They lost a campaign in California last year to require labels on most genetically engineered processed foods and produce. Monsanto and other food and chemical companies spent more than $40 million to defeat the ballot measure.
Monsanto says the success of its seeds is proof of their value. By and large, "farmers appreciate what we do," David Snively, Monsanto's top lawyer, said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Herbicide-resistant soybean seeds first hit the market in 1996. To protect its investment in their development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
Like almost every other farmer in Indiana. Bowman used the patented seeds for his main crop. But for a risky, late-season crop on his 300 acres in Sandborn, about 100 miles southwest of Indianapolis, Bowman said, "I wanted a cheap source of seed."
He couldn't reuse his own beans or buy seeds from other farmers who had similar agreements with Monsanto and other companies licensed to sell genetically engineered seeds. And dealers he used to buy cheap seed from no longer carry the unmodified seeds.
So Bowman found what looked like a loophole and went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.
Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years.
He didn't try to keep it a secret from Monsanto, and in October 2007 the company sued him for violating its patent. Bowman's is one of 146 lawsuits Monsanto has filed since 1996 claiming unauthorized use of its Roundup Ready seeds, Snively said.
A federal court in Indiana sided with Monsanto and awarded the company $84,456 for Bowman's unlicensed use of Monsanto's technology. The federal appeals court in Washington that handles all appeals in patent cases upheld the award. The appeals court said farmers may never replant Roundup Ready seeds without running afoul of Monsanto's patents.
The Supreme Court will grapple with the limit of Monsanto's patent rights, whether they stop with the sale of the first crop of beans or extend to each new crop soybean farmers grow that has the gene modification that allows it to withstand the application of weed killer.
The company sees Bowman's actions as a threat both to its Roundup Ready line of seeds and to other innovations that could be easily and cheaply reproduced if they were not protected.
"This case really is about 21st century technologies," Snively said.
Bowman and his allies say Monsanto's legal claims amount to an effort to bully farmers.
The Center for Food Safety's Freese says Monsanto's biggest moneymaker is corn seed, which cannot be replanted.
"So seed-saving would have no impact on the majority of Monsanto's seed revenue," he said.
The case is Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 11-796.
But the 75-year-old Indiana farmer figured out a way to benefit from a high-technology product - soybeans that are resistant to weed-killers - without always paying the high price that such genetically engineered seeds typically bring. In so doing, he ignited a legal fight with seed-giant Monsanto Co. that has now come before the Supreme Court, with arguments taking place Tuesday.
The court case poses the question of whether Bowman's actions violated the patent rights held by Monsanto, which developed soybean and other seeds that survive when farmers spray their fields with the company's Roundup brand weed-killer. The seeds dominate American agriculture, including in Indiana, where more than 90 percent of soybeans are "Roundup Ready."
Monsanto has attracted a bushel of researchers, universities and other agribusiness concerns to its side because they fear a decision in favor of Bowman would leave their own technological innovations open to poaching. The company's allies even include a company that is embroiled in a separate legal battle with Monsanto over one of the patents at issue in the Bowman case.
The Obama administration also backs Monsanto, having earlier urged the court to stay out of the case because of the potential for far-reaching implications for patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.
Monsanto's opponents argue that the company has tried to use patent law to control the supply of seeds for soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. The result has been a dramatic rise in seed prices and reduced options for farmers, according to the Center for Food Safety. The group opposes the spread of genetically engineered crops and says their benefits have been grossly overstated.
"It has become extremely difficult for farmers to find high-quality conventional seeds," said Bill Freese, the center's science policy analyst.
Consumer groups and organic food producers have fought Monsanto over genetically engineered farm and food issues in several settings. They lost a campaign in California last year to require labels on most genetically engineered processed foods and produce. Monsanto and other food and chemical companies spent more than $40 million to defeat the ballot measure.
Monsanto says the success of its seeds is proof of their value. By and large, "farmers appreciate what we do," David Snively, Monsanto's top lawyer, said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Herbicide-resistant soybean seeds first hit the market in 1996. To protect its investment in their development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
Like almost every other farmer in Indiana. Bowman used the patented seeds for his main crop. But for a risky, late-season crop on his 300 acres in Sandborn, about 100 miles southwest of Indianapolis, Bowman said, "I wanted a cheap source of seed."
He couldn't reuse his own beans or buy seeds from other farmers who had similar agreements with Monsanto and other companies licensed to sell genetically engineered seeds. And dealers he used to buy cheap seed from no longer carry the unmodified seeds.
So Bowman found what looked like a loophole and went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.
Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years.
He didn't try to keep it a secret from Monsanto, and in October 2007 the company sued him for violating its patent. Bowman's is one of 146 lawsuits Monsanto has filed since 1996 claiming unauthorized use of its Roundup Ready seeds, Snively said.
A federal court in Indiana sided with Monsanto and awarded the company $84,456 for Bowman's unlicensed use of Monsanto's technology. The federal appeals court in Washington that handles all appeals in patent cases upheld the award. The appeals court said farmers may never replant Roundup Ready seeds without running afoul of Monsanto's patents.
The Supreme Court will grapple with the limit of Monsanto's patent rights, whether they stop with the sale of the first crop of beans or extend to each new crop soybean farmers grow that has the gene modification that allows it to withstand the application of weed killer.
The company sees Bowman's actions as a threat both to its Roundup Ready line of seeds and to other innovations that could be easily and cheaply reproduced if they were not protected.
"This case really is about 21st century technologies," Snively said.
Bowman and his allies say Monsanto's legal claims amount to an effort to bully farmers.
The Center for Food Safety's Freese says Monsanto's biggest moneymaker is corn seed, which cannot be replanted.
"So seed-saving would have no impact on the majority of Monsanto's seed revenue," he said.
The case is Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 11-796.
Monsanto must be STOPPED!!!
Monsanto and others don't want to admit it but Mother Nature is always one step ahead of them. A few of the weeds each year are resistant to Round-up and they are finding that it doesn't work nearly as well.  Now they are trying to develop seeds that can withstand stronger pesticides. They don't ever admit it but all pesticides are bad for the environment and pollute the ground water, streams and rivers all the way to the ocean. One farmer a few years ago decided he was spending way too much on weed killers and other pesticides so he decided to go organic. He used manure from some local dairies. The first year his crops didn't do so well but he stuck with it, the second year the crops were better and by the third year his crops were out yielding his neighbors who were using all the costly pesticides. Part of the reason Monsanto wants farmers to use their seeds is so they can sell them the pesticides.
Remember, when you are eating anything that has these soybeans in the ingredients, you are also eating all the Roundup they are spraying on the fields. They can spray gobs of it now, with the soybean plants being resistant to it. This whole genetically modified food business is very scary. Monsanto is way too powerful and they have way too much political influence. The mainstream media ignores the dangers of genetically modified foods. Do your family a favor and watch this eye opening video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA
"The Obama administration also backs Monsanto, having earlier urged the court to stay out of the case because of the potential for far-reaching implications for patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies."
He urged them to stay out of it because they made such huge campaign contributions while they were buying the ability to limit ol' Vernon's right to compete in a "free market"
Good job obama, another right wing corporatist fighting for the American way, even if it gets in American's way.
Monsanto: Living better through chemistry. You can thank them for Agent Orange. They lied and covered up the side effects and dangers of Agent Orange, and a bunch of other chemicals. Now we have GMO's. What dangers and side effects do GMO's have. Who will tell us about those dangers and side effects? Not Monsanto or the Government--- Sounds like the same story we got with Agent Orange.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/31/monsanto-worst-company-of-2011.aspx
@rockguy If GMO's are so safe, why is Monsnto spending millions to prevent the labeling of foods that have been genetically modified?Â
How many more years remain on these patents? Once the initial patents expire, aren't those GM seeds available for anyone to produce?
@Iconoclast I do not this to be the case, but I would assume Monsanto continues to "tweak" their design to renew the patent...They have all the farmers by the bawls when it comes to signing on with them..if you don't they will bury you in legal fees. Truly a company only out for it's own success.
Interedting that Monsanto's top lawyer is named Snively......Can't make stuff like this up....WOW
Monsanto has done some really good research, but their wretched treatment of farmers and people in general over stuff they cannot control (cross pollenizing of plants) transferring "patented" material. I hope the courts side with the farmers here soon.
I support patents, generally, but the whole GMO foods thing that doesn't allow farmers to even keep and use their own seeds to plant, even if it's been contaminated by the neighbors use of GMO crops and not an intentional act of theft, is just wrong, and will hurt the world's farmers and people far more than it will help. Monsanto has done some good things - this isn't one of them.
@RN1"even if it's been contaminated by the neighbors use of GMO crops and not an intentional act of theft"
Agreed.
 The way the Court should look at the contamination issue is as they would if someone sends or gives you a product you did not ask for, you are free to use that without paying for it - or be held to the "contract" you never signed.Â
As to diverting the original product from it's intended purpose, I see arguments on both sides. With most products we buy, there is usually no restriction on how it is used. But, if we sign a contract - in this case for a seed -we are bound by that contract...even if we buy the product of that seed, to use as seed...
My big problem with GMO food specifically is that the control of those modifications is all in the hands of the modifier - who has a vested interest in selling the food, not in assuring the food is safe. In fact, how do we know if the GMO is not DESIGNED to take over other seeds, to remove all natural seeds - in other words eliminate the natural seeds, and thus the market for the producers of natural seeds?Â
What if someone plants this GMO seed upwind of a natural producer's seed beds? That would destroy any market of the seed producer for their own product. How is that different from a mob take over of the merchants in a neighborhood, destroying the business of those who defy them, while draining the profits of those who bow to the power of the mob?