2. Patenting of plants and animals takes away farmer autonomy serving "bioserfdom" and threatening biodiversity.
- Right now, 80 % of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean the difference between surviving and going under. It would accelerate the consolidation of small farms into the hands of those with the money to engage in industrialized agribusiness -- which usually means higher profits but less employment and lower yields per hectare (Dyer).
- In October 1992, U.S. chemical company, W.R. Grace & Co. 's subsidiary Agracetus was awarded a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on all genetically engineered cotton. The patent gives Agracetus rights over all transgenic cotton regardless of how the genes are inserted even though application was based on just one method of transferring genes that endow antibiotic resistance into cotton cells. Those doing applied research on cotton must hold a license from Agracetus for the 17 year life of the patent. Cotton production accounts for all or part of the incomes of approximately 250 million people worldwide (McNally & Wheate, p. 224).
- In 1994, Agracetus was awarded a soyabean patent by the European Patent Office covering all genetically engineered soyabean plants and seeds and their natural offspring until the year 2011. This "species" patenting has been compared to giving a patent to Ford on cars. Other companies can develop a different kind of automobile, but they would have to pay Ford a royalty to do so (McNally & Wheate, p. 224).
- U.S. based company Merck Pharmaceuticals has purchased Costa Rica's biodiversity for a sum of $2 million toward the national conservation programme and 5% of any royalties from patented products developed from their rainforest resources (plants, micro-organisms and animals). Costa Rica is estimated to hold 5% of the world's biodiversity. Merck's annual sales in 1991 were $8,600 million U.S. (McNally & Wheate, p.225).
- Shaman Pharmaceuticals has similar agreements with a dozen countries. If such contracts become a model for others countries, the world's biodiversity would become the monopolistic property of the handful of companies rich enough to purchase exclusive rights to it (McNally & Wheate, p.225).
- A bill introduced in the Ohio state legislature would require registration and state-level regulation of anyone who cleans or conditions self-pollinated seed. The proposed legislation is part of a movement to eliminate or restrict the right of farmers to save and exchange seed - to protect increasing seed industry profits. If the bill becomes law, it would require seed cleaners to keep detailed records on every seed cleaning transaction, to document the name of the farmer, seed variety names and whether or not the seed is protected by patents or breeders' rights. According to the Ohio Seed Improvement Association, the proposal to amend Ohio's seed law originated with agribusiness giant Monsanto last year. Monsanto's strategy is to transfer the expense and burden of policing rural communities to the seed cleaners and state governments. If the bill becomes law, Monsanto's "gene police" will ultimately become state regulators who are working on the part of Monsanto. The Ohio legislation is unfair to farmers because it places a heavy regulatory burden on all seed-saving farmers and seed cleaners - not only farmers who buy Monsanto's patented seed. Under US patent law it is illegal for farmers to save patented seed. To enforce its monopoly, Monsanto has aggressively prosecuted farmers for what it calls "seed piracy." Farmers who grow soybeans and wheat typically save seed from their harvest to re-plant the following year. An estimated 25% of North American soybean seed is farm-saved seed (Ohio Bill Discriminates Against Seed-Saving Farmers, RAFI).
- Monsanto has hired Pinkerton investigators to locate seed-saving farmers and it is using radio ads and telephone "tiplines" in farming communities to identify and intimidate farmers who might save or re-use its patented seed. Under Monsanto's gene licensing agreement, it reserves the right to come onto the farmer's land and take seed samples to insure that the farmer is not violating patent law. Monsanto has charged 6 farmers (Ohio Bill Discriminates Against Seed-Saving Farmers, RAFI; Lees, p. 27).
- As the biotechnology industry tightens its grip on food and agriculture by using intellectual property laws (patenting) and new proprietary technologies, farmers will grow crops according to a formula dictated by industrial processors. Farmers will sign contracts or negotiate agreements that stipulate precise levels of inputs, dictating what seed, fertilizer, chemicals, row spacing, irrigation and harvesting techniques are used, and other management requirements. Many farmers will become "renters" of proprietary germplasm and information, rather than relying on local knowledge and experience (From Biosafety to BioSerfdom, RAFI).