One of the most contentious issues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is corporate control over seed ownership. Companies like Monsanto (now part of Bayer) have patented their genetically modified seeds, giving them exclusive rights to these products. While patents are designed to reward innovation, they also limit farmers’ ability to save and reuse seeds from one season to the next. Traditionally, farmers saved seeds from previous harvests, which allowed for sustainable, cost-effective farming. However, with patented GMO seeds, this practice is prohibited, creating a financial dependency on corporations.
These restrictions often put small-scale farmers at a significant disadvantage. Farmers must purchase new seeds annually, which increases production costs and reduces their autonomy. This system benefits large agribusinesses but leaves smaller farmers struggling to compete. For example, between 1995 and 2020, the price of GMO seeds increased by 575%, a trend that places a heavy burden on independent farmers.
- Patent Infringement: The court concluded that Schmeiser had violated the Patent Act, emphasizing that patent rights take precedence over land ownership rights. It ruled that the presence of the patented gene constituted as "use" of the invention, regardless of Schmeiser's knowledge or intention.
The case was a significant legal decision in Canada regarding patent law and agricultural practices involving GMOs. The case centers on Percy Schmeiser; a Saskatchewan farmer, who was found to have grown canola containing a patented gene from Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety without obtaining a license.
Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement, asserting that he had used, reproduced, and sold plants containing their patented gene without authorization.
- No Financial Liability: Despite finding infringement, the court determined that Schmeiser did not owe Monsanto any damages because he had not economically benefited from the patented technology. He had not utilized Roundup on his crops, which meant he did not gain from the herbicide-resistant trait of the canola.