Thursday, May 16, 2013

Intellectual Property, business and the Grange



I’ve seen a few emails from members about our press release about the recent Supreme Court decision about Monsanto’s intellectual property rights and thought a few comments to the world in general would be appropriate.

First, the Grange, since its earliest days, has always been in favor of technology being used to improve crops, livestock, and all the associated practices and methods in raising them. While those early members likely never dreamed of the capabilities of science that we enjoy today, our policies have remained consistent in promoting the use of science to advance agriculture.

While GMO’s are a controversial issue for some, the science from our land grant colleges, the USDA, and others continue to show that there is no detectable difference from the food grown from GMO or non-GMO seed.

The Grange continues to support all aspects of agriculture, from a small operation feeding a few families to large farms helping to feed the world. The diversity in agriculture in practices and produce are good for American consumers and the starving in the far corners of the world. We will always advocate that we are good stewards of the soil, water, and air regardless of the size of farm. Science remains a tool to assist all farmers to continue to do a better job of protecting our resources while increasing the food, fiber, and fuel we’ll need in the future.

Second, the Grange has never supported or opposed specific business, or corporations, with the exception of co-operatives which we introduced to America and have continued to support. Our organization advocated for many railroad lines and just as often advocated against some of their monopolistic practices such as unfair rate structures. The end result of our fight with the railroads was the adoption of the idea that monopolies can be regulated for the public good. Even today, we take many policy positions for or against the practices of businesses. This does not mean we support or oppose them, just how they are doing business.

Monsanto is a large business, but it does not meet the definition of a monopoly as there are other large companies competing in the same field and many smaller companies in competition with them. We supported Monsanto’s right to own and protect intellectual property that they developed. While some of their practices may garner our opposition, on this issue, we believe that their rights were being infringed upon.

Third, our policies are the result of many discussions and debates and each are eventually adopted by the delegates of the National Grange. These policies then are advocated for by the officers and staff of the National Grange. The strength of the Grange is this deliberative policy-setting process rather than allowing leadership to create policies based upon their personal views.

4 comments:

  1. The rights of intellectual property is a whole different issue then the safety of GMO. I think it was ill advised to roll the whole issue of safety and intellectual rights into the same article.
    Now comes another personal issue of mine with Monsanto's rights. I am a farmer who has a non-GMO crop planted. Our bees cross with Monsanto's crop and contaminate mine. I replant my crop not knowing that is has been compromised, then Monsanto sues me using the same tactic as was commented upon. The person grew the crop, sold the crop but saved some for replanting. In my supposed case and in their court case the end result is the same - a lawsuit for not paying Monsanto for use of seeds. Where does it end? As in Germany I would hope we stop using Monsanto seeds and just because they will eventually cross into our food chain. Characteristics of GMO will alter our existence, whether good or bad has yet to be determined, but it will alter it.
    Lastly I do not recall the Grange bringing up GMO studies, polling members, nor safety of GMO products being a part of the lawsuit the court settled. Some where in there a personal view did enter into the article on safety of GMO.

    The Grange Article should be withdrawn or clarified relating only to the Court finding. The Grange is not a scientific group that studies GMO safety and therefore should not preface support for unknowns.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?

    Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patenting obligations of the TRIPS Agreement (an agreement under the World Trade Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) have been discussed in the light of their consequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops. In the context of the related subject of the use of gene technology in medicine, WHO has reviewed the conflict between IPRs and an equal access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. The review has considered potential problems of monopolization and doubts about new patent regulations in the field of genetic sequences in human medicine. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.
    Once your crop has been infected or affected by GM crops outside your fields you now have lost the rights to resow you own seeds!

    Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?

    Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an undesirable level of control of seed markets by a few chemical companies. Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop protection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the values attached to food. These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the chemical industry in seed markets, the range of varieties used by farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would impact on the food basket of a society as well as in the long run on crop protection (for example, with the development of resistance against insect pests and tolerance of certain herbicides). The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on these chemicals. These groups fear a dominant position of the chemical industry in agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to be sustainable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.realfarmacy.com/monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-landmark-case1/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ed you must watch this video and all Grangers should as well - this is what we are saying we back as the Grange!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a6OxbpLwEjQ

    ReplyDelete