SERIES:
2005-01-25 Transgenics (GMO’s): New documentary, “Genetic Matrix”
2005-09-12 Monsanto – Video sows seeds of controversy, Univ of Manitoba (University blocks distribution of the film.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CONTENTS:
(1) BACKGROUND ON THE VIDEO
(2) TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO
=====================
Michelle writes: We’ve just received a review copy of a new documentary on Percy Schemeiser being launched at an event with Avi Lewis, Percy Schmeiser and Shiv Chopra in Winnipeg next week. It’s called Genetic Matrix: The Schemeiser Case and the Fight for the Future of Life.
===================================
(1) BACKGROUND ON THE VIDEO
Genetic Matrix: The Schemeiser Case and the Fight for the Future of Life is a short documentary (~35 minutes) that delves into the controversial issues of genetic engineering (GE), food safety, and life patents. The film is largely told through the perspective of Percy Schmeiser, 73 year old canola farmer from Saskatchewan, as he proceeds to the Supreme Court of Canada in his landmark patent infringement case with biotech giant Monsanto.
Mark Achbar, director of The Corporation says this about the film:
“This informative video is a work of passion and concern. It’s a testament to the human spirit, embodied in Percy and Louise Schmeiser, whose heroic fight against Monsanto is but the opening volley in a war we ignore at our own peril. I am grateful to Ian Mauro and his team for taking on such a daunting, important and chilling topic”.
The work includes many high profile experts to help contextualize the controversial and often complex issues presented. The film is a co-production between the Council of Canadians and Dead Crow Productions and is written, directed, shot, and edited by Ian Mauro. It is currently being distributed throughout Canada and the world.
PARTICIPANTS
- Brewster Kneen (Author of Farmageddon)
- Vandana Shiva (Physicist and Ecologist)
- Ralph Nader (Lawyer and Consumer Advocate)
- Maude Barlow (Volunteer Chairperson, Council of Canadians)
- Nadege Adam (Biotech Campaigner, Council of Canadians)
- Priscilla Settee (Scholar and Activist)
- Rene Van Acker (Agronomist and Weed Scientist, University of Manitoba)
- Ann Clark (Agricultural Researcher, University of Guelph)
- Michelle Swenarchuk (Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association)
- Percy and Louise (Farmers embroiled in 6-year legal battle with Monsanto)
- Darrin Qualman (Research Director, National Farmers Union)
- Nettie Wiebe (Farmer and Professor of Ethics, University of Saskatchewan)
- Terry Boehm (Vice President, National Farmers Union)
- Steven Shrybman (Lawyer representing the interveners in support of the Schmeisers)
- Terry Zakreski (Lawyer for Percy and Louise Schmeiser)
- Andrew Kimbrell (Director, Center for Technology Assessment)
- Devlin Kuyek (Researcher for GRAIN)
OUTLINE
- Science and regulation of genetic engineering (including: Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Vandana Shiva, and Nadege Adam)
- Food Safety, Labeling, and Secrecy (including: Maude Barlow, Ralph Nader, Nettie Wiebe, Nadege Adam, and Priscilla Settee)
- Life Patents (Michelle Swenarchuk, Nadege Adam, Priscilla Settee)
- The Schmeiser Story (Percy Schmeiser, Dr. Ann Clark, Steven Shrybman, Andrew Kimbrell, and Terry Zakreski)
- Conclusion (Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Vandana Shiva, Darrin Qualman, Percy and Louise Schmeiser, Brewster Kneen, Dr. Rene Van Acker, Dr. Nettie Wiebe, Nadege Adam)
Ian Mauro
Ph.D. Candidate
Environment & Geography
University of Manitoba
===========================
(2) TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO
GENETIC MATRIX:
The Schmeiser Case
& the Fight for the Future of Life
Council of Canadians &
A Dead Crow Productions Film
Written, Directed, Shot and Edited: Ian Mauro Executive Producer: Stephane McLachlan
Running Time: ~35 minutes
-Transcript-
[Text] In 1996, Monsanto released genetically engineered herbicide tolerant canola in Canada
[Text] Farmers Percy & Louise Schmeiser were sued in 1998 by Monsanto for infringing a gene patent on this canola
[Text] Monsanto vs Schmeiser’ was the first case in the world arguing that a patent over a lifeform had been violated
[Text] After Six years of legal battle, here is the conclusion to Percy & Louise’s story
[Black Screen: Voice Only]
<Percy Schmeiser> I did not lay the lawsuit against Monsanto, Monsanto laid the lawsuit against me. They are the ones that came after me because I was a seed developer and they wanted to take my rights away to develop seeds and plants.
[Fade In: Percy Schmeiser]
[Lower Third]
Percy Schmeiser
Listening to himself on the radio
<Percy Schmeiser> So the issues before the supreme court are very broad in nature, its not only simple in patent infringement, but now it is the whole issue of by putting a patent on a gene and inserting into a seed that has maybe thirty thousand other genes or any other life form. Does that give you total ownership and control of whatever higher life form you put it into?
[Graphic: Matrix Style Falling Letters]
[Opening Title] The Council of Canadians & Dead Crow Productions Present Genetic Matrix The Schmeiser Case & the Fight for the Future of Life
[Fade In: David Suzuki]
[Lower Third]
David Suzuki
Geneticist and Author
<David Suzuki> In the late 1970’s new genetic methods enabled geneticist to isolate DNA from virtually any organism they wanted, to attach those pieces of DNA to DNA from any other species they wanted. They were called joint molecules or recombinant DNA. You could make combinations of DNA that never occur in nature and than transfer those recombinant or joint molecules into other species or living organisms. Those organisms were called transgenic organisms.
[Lower Third]
Nadège Adam
Council of Canadians
<Nadège Adam> Genetically modified food refer to a whole heap of different kinds of modification, any kind of genetic manipulation would follow under the definition of genetically modified. Biodiversity as we see it today is in good part a result of genetic modification. Genetic Engineering refers specifically to the crossing of genes between two different species.
[Image: Vegetables at an outdoor market; butterflies; fish; tomatoes]
<David Suzuki> Throughout evolution, the very definition of a species was a group of organisms that were not able to exchange DNA with others that were closely related to them. That’s the very definition of a species.
< Nadège Adam > Whenever you’ll here, you know GE or GM know that though those they use these words interchangeably know that for the purpose of the debate we’re all referring to the crossing of genes between two species, something that’s has never been done before.
[Image: Dinner plate with G.E. sign]
[Lower Third]
Dr. Vandana Shiva
Physicist and Ecologist
<Dr. Vandana Shiva> Now, when you take a gene and introduce it to a crop to which it does not belong and to which it could never be related through normal breeding you have created a crop, a seed, a plant, a food that is different from the one without the gene, at the genetic level this is different.
[Image: Tractor in farm field]
<David Suzuki> So when you take a gene out of a flounder and stick in into a tomato plant you have changed the genomic context within which that flounder gene finds itself. If you took Bono out of U2 and stuck them into the Toronto Symphony and said make music – noise would come out of that but there is no way you could anticipate the consequences.
[Image: Violin and U2 poster]
< Nadège Adam > Our agencies use what is called substantial equivalence.
<Dr. Vandana Shiva> They just assume substantial equivalence and say treat it as the same, treat as the same as the parent and do not look therefore for any impact of the introduction.
[Image: Lab Equipment]
< Nadège Adam > They do not consider any different the conventional foods, and therefore they have not conducted the necessary testing to ensure that they are safe.
<David Suzuki> We don’t know the long term effects of these transgenic manipulations.
< Nadège Adam > This is a brand new technology, we’ve never done this before yet we are feeding it to our children on a daily basis not knowing what will come in the future.
[Text] Food Safety and Labelling
[Lower Third]
Priscilla Settee
Scholar and Activist
<Priscilla Settee> By in large, many citizens are in a bit of a vacuum in terms of what is happening with the safety and quality of our foods.
[Lower Third]
Maude Barlow
Council of Canadians
<Maude Barlow > Ten years ago there were no commercial genetically engineered foods for sale on our shelves. Today, almost 70% of grocery products are genetically modified.
[Image: Shopping cart in grocery store]
< Nadège Adam > Transformation of our food supply was done without our
consent or knowledge.
< Priscilla Settee > The issue of biotechnology and food has not been transparent.
< Nadège Adam > The government and industry has gone through tremendous lengths to prevent us from being able to distinguish between foods containing GE ingredients and those that don’t.
[Lower Third]
Dr. Nettie Wiebe
Past President of the National Farmers Union
< Dr. Nettie Wiebe >The possibility of democracy depends on a citizenship that knows there are choices to be made and then gets to make them.
< Nadège Adam > And the polls have been consistent for the past four years that over 90% of Canadians say we want mandatory labeling.
[Lower Third]
Ralph Nader
Lawyer and Consumer Advocate
<Ralph Nader > If an industry is so proud of its technology, it should be ferociously willing to have its food product labeled in the supermarket, so it can brag about it.
[Image: Shopping cart in grocery store]
< Nadège Adam >So what’s the problem? Well the problem is the food industry knows full well that the minute we have the opportunity to pick the product that doesn’t contain genetic engineered ingredients is exactly what we are going to do. And so while there has been such a public outcry for mandatory labelling policy, the industry has been lobbying the government very strongly to not allow that.
<Ralph Nader> Biotechnology is moving at breakneck speed all around the world, escaping jurisdictions in country after country without any legal or ethical framework.
< Nadège Adam > Any epidemiologist who works with this stuff will tell you that you need labels. You need to have two sample populations to compare, Sample A that eats GE foods and Sample B that doesn’t. You compare the two so you can see, whether or not there is an impact here. Without labels that ’s impossible to do. We actually believe that is the reason they don’t want labels, that way you avoid liability.
[Image: Grocery store deli]
<Ralph Nader > In Washington DC, there is more rigorous regulation of toys by far then biotechnology.
<Dr. Nettie Wiebe> You have a huge new technology and insertion into you food systems and consumers are not suppose to be able to know what it is and still choose. There is just a huge gap there; between what are consumer rights, citizen rights, and the corporate interest in covering this up.
[Text] Genetic Engineering and Patenting of Life
< Nadège Adam > With GE and the ability to slightly modify a plant or an animal, these companies are now claiming that these newly modified organism, GE organisms, are inventions and are claiming patents on them.
[Image: Books on The Law of Intellectual Property]
[Lower Third]
Michelle Swenarchuk
Canadian Environmental Law Association
< Michelle Swenarchuk > What is a patent…anyway? Well it’s a propriety right that has been in the law for a couple of hundreds of years and one of the most important things to know about it is that it was actually devised as a public benefit. So the fundamental purpose of the patent system is a social purpose and it is a social contract – an inventor gets an exclusive right of invention for a certain length of time in response, in exchange, for disclosing how it is made.
< Priscilla Settee > Patents were established for non-life processes.
[Text: Split Screen with Michelle Swenarchuk ] ‘Diamond vs Chakrabarty’ was the US Supreme Court case that first allowed the patenting of a bacteria]
< Michelle Swenarchuk > By extending patents to life forms is something that only started to happen south of the border in 1980, when the first patent was given on a bacteria. The famous Chakrabarty case, the single cell and after that without any particular public debate, without really any scrutiny or knowledge of patents the Canadian Patent Office decided to give patents on a single cell life forms.
[Image: Books on shelf – The Law of Environmental Justice & Human Rights Law in Canada]
< Nadège Adam > Canada is quite an important example, because we are one of the only countries of the G7 to not have any kind of language in our patent law that speaks to biotechnology and so because in the absence of regulatory framework these companies have gone through our court system. We are talking about companies who have the resources to do just that, leaving the people to do there best to fight them in courts.
[Text] The Schmeiser Story
[Black Screen: Voice Only]
< Nadège Adam > A lot of Canadians have reacted to the story of Percy Schmeiser, which perfectly illustrates the problem.
[Image: Percy Schmeiser sitting in truck listening to the radio]
[Lower Third]
Percy Schmeiser
Morning of May 20, 2004
Day before Supreme Court decision
<Radio> For six years now, 73 year old Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser has devoted his life to battling agri-chemical giant Monsanto. Back in August of 1998, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against Mr. Schmeiser. Somehow, some of their GE canola seeds ended up on his field and grew. For a long time, both sides vehemently disputed how the seeds got there in the first place, but in the end it didn’t matter. Monsanto claimed Percy Schmeiser still violated patent laws, and two lower courts agreed. Mr. Schmeiser was forced to turn over his entire crop and the seeds he and his wife spent 50 years cultivating. He also had to pay Monsanto’s legal bills. His supporters say he is just one more small farmer being strong-armed by the international corporation. They say this case will determine to what extent farmers will have control over their land, crops, and seeds. Tomorrow the Supreme Court decides, today Percy Schmeiser joins me in our Saskatoon studio, good morning.
[Text] 5-months earlier
[Music: Begins]
[Image Montage: Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa Airport, Percy Schmeiser]
[Text] The Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser
[Music: Ends]
[Lower Third]
Forum on Patenting
Evening before Supreme Court hearing
<Ann Clark> Percy and Louise Schmeiser, what have they done that has brought them in a time which should have been golden retirement before the Supreme Court of Canada?
[Lower Third]
Percy Schmeiser
Outside the Forum on Patenting
<Percy Schmeiser> Now it’s at a court where it should have been many years ago
<Ann Clark> They are here because they didn’t cave in when Monsanto came and threatened them, like they threaten every other farmer.
[Image: Aerial view of cropland from plane]
<Percy Schmeiser> We just stood up to what we believed in at that time, that farmers’ rights should not be taken away, that a farmer should always be able to use their own seed.
[Lower Third]
Dr. Ann Clark
University of Guelph
< Dr. Ann Clark> But some farmers, the Schmeiser’s one of them, are seed savers. Now these people are anathema to companies like Monsanto because that means they don’t have to come back and buy the seed. They can just keep their own seed which is what most of the rest of the world does.
<Percy Schmeiser> Anyone that is a seed developer will tell you that you are developing a form of life that becomes just like a part of your family, its almost like a child. Cause you developed something that you have spent so much time with.
[Image: Aerial view of cropland from plane]
< Dr. Ann Clark> But this really is the beginning of the problem that Mr.
Schmeiser is experienced, because if he has an contamination event, and there are so many ways that that can happen, then the trait then is in his seed from that point on.
[Image: Percy standing in his canola crop]
<Percy Schmeiser> As a canola seed developer, I lost all my research and development, well I should say my wife and I have lost 50 years of research and development, because our pure seeds were contaminated by GMO’s.
< Dr. Ann Clark> The appeals court acknowledged and Monsanto acknowledged that Percy Schmeiser had not stolen or otherwise fraudulently acquired the seed.
<Percy Schmeiser> Where did the seed originally come from? It came from farmers, from all over the world. They never developed any seed or plant, and by putting a single gene in they claimed total ownership, yet a single seed or plant can have thousands of genes in, but by putting one gene in they claim total ownership. It’s the greatest theft or fraud I have ever witnessed in my life
< Dr. Ann Clark> All it has to be is there on your land and you are still guilty if the original judges decision in this case is allowed to stand. It is just a simply extraordinary situation and it very clearly illustrates that existing patent law is inappropriate for crops that have been genetically modified, particularly when the GM trait, any trait cannot be contained.
<Percy Schmeiser> I think it’s a very important moment in history. I think we are at a crossroads. There are so many important issues, like the food, the environment, property rights, intellectual property rights but most of all most important thing to me is who owns life.
[Music: Begins]
[Image Montage: Images from outside the Supreme Court] [Text] Supreme Court Morning of the hearing January 20, 2004
[Music: Ends]
<Percy Schmeiser> Good morning Ian, how are you doing?
<Ian Mauro> Not bad how are you?
<Percy Schmeiser> I got cold ears.
[Lower Third]
Percy Schmeiser
Farmer
Nathan Busch
Lawyer & Biologist
< Nathan Busch > In my philosophy, it’s okay for Monsanto to be in the
market. They have a right to be there, but so do you! You know, and they
can’t have that line way into your field, push it back out. You got to have ownership with your crops, and you got to have the right to grow your crop the way you want to and do what with it you want.
<Percy Schmeiser> That’s what we’re here for.
[Background Noise: cheers and applause ]
[Lower Third]
Steven Shrybman
Lawyer for public interest groups
< Steven Shrybman > One of the fundamental issues before the court is going to be and we argue one of the fundamental mistakes that the lower courts made was to not to distinguish between a patent to a gene or a cell on one hand and the patent to plant and a seed on the other. Patents Act of Canada doesn’t issue patents to a plant and seeds, in the simplest terms Monsanto doesn’t have a patent to the seed. So how can a patent to a gene or a cell be infringed by a planting a seed.
[Image: Inside Supreme Court Hearing]
[Text] Supreme Court of Canada
[Lower Third]
Terry Zakreski
Schmeiser’s Lawyer
< Terry Zakreski > Our contention and our factum is this, is that if this is what the claims result in, if it can mean any cell then what you have done is indirectly claimed protection for a plant. Cause to say that you haven’t claimed a plant when you’ve claimed every cell within it is akin to say that you haven’t claimed Canada when you’ve claimed every province, every territory, and every speck of dust within it.
[Lower Third]
Press Conference
On Parliament Hill regarding the hearing
< Andrew Kimbrell >In the United States we have allowed the patenting of seeds and plants and we’re issuing a report in about two weeks that show that 90 farmers, 9 – 0 farmers in the United States have been sued and are currently in court being sued by Monsanto for these patent infringements.
So this is a cautionary tale if this kind of patenting is allowed, we already have 90 and counting in cases, we have over 500 cases where the farmers has been forced to settle out of court.
[Image: Letter from Monsanto describing claim of patent infringement]
< Steven Shrybman > In the new next context of biotechnology and intellectual property rights, our global phenomena and the decision by a Appellate court in any developing country is bound to resonate with policy and law makers not only in other countries but also in international bodies that have important roles to play in making policy decisions about biotechnology, about intellectual property rights, particularly as they effect agriculture, the capacity of farmers to engage in traditional farming practices.
[Image: Photos taken in Supreme Court Lobby after Schmeiser trial]
[Lower Third]
Andrew Kimbrell
International Center for Technology Assessment
< Andrew Kimbrell > We have 90, nine zero, with the average settlement so far being $150 000, so once Monsanto gets this hold that they are asking the Canadian Supreme Court to give them, the persecution of farmers becomes immediate, it becomes widespread, and it becomes very profitable for the company.
< Steven Shrybman >The rough calculation is that there are more than 1.4 billion people on earth that depend upon their ability to save seed in order to feed themselves and their families.
< Andrew Kimbrell > In the United States, we are very use to Monsanto they have become the poster child for fifty years with the contamination of our communities, and our land. They have brought us Agent Orange, they brought us PCB’s. This is a polluter. This is a long term recidivist polluter Monsanto. There is something very unusual they are asking the Supreme Court of Canada to do for the first time of my knowledge, which is they are saying we usually have to pay when we pollute but now for the first time we want to be able to pollute when they genetically contaminate people like Percy and have them pay us. Well, they are standing all pollution, all environmental law on its head. Instead of the polluter paying, they are saying we pollute your land, and we are going to try and use intellectual property as a ruse to have you pay us for our contamination, for our irresponsibility, for our failure to control our genetic contamination.
[Image: Percy Schmeiser sitting in truck listening to the radio]
< Radio > Where are you going to be as you wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to hand its decision down on Friday?
< Percy Schmeiser > I will be at my lawyers office in Saskatoon, and then we plan to hold a news conference at 9:30.
< Percy Schmeiser > And that is what it is all about…..control of the seed supply, that farmers always have to buy their seed. So hopefully tomorrow morning when we hear the decision from the Supreme Court, farmers will maintain and continue their rights to use their seed from year to year
< Percy Schmeiser > It’s no longer a Percy Schmeiser case, it’s a case now that affects all of society, whether you are a farmer or in any walk of life, because the patenting of genes and inserting them into higher life forms and then applying control has become a big concern, for everyone.
[Image: Percy Schmeiser’s Seed Cleaning Bill, May 19, 2004]
<Percy Schmeiser >I am right now, actually at the quarter of land where Monsanto laid the lawsuit against me and it was referred to in the lawsuit as field #2, the famous number 2 field.
These all had pods on last fall, but there are no pods now. So where are they? See they shell out and they blow and yet the scientist at my trial said that it can’t blow in the wind. How unbelievable, you know.
<Percy Schmeiser> I think that whatever that the decision will be tomorrow by the Supreme Court, I am prepared to accept, but one thing I do know is that I took it as far as I could possibly take it to stand up for the rights of farmers and people around the world, that those rights should not be taken away. So win or lose tomorrow, I have done all what I could do as much as I could do and I think I have satisfaction in that I gave it my best.
[Lower Third]
International Conference Call
With groups in support of the Schmeiser’s
[Lower Third]
Voice of Steven Shrybman
Lawyer for the interveners
< Steven Shrybman > I haven’t read the entire decision, I have only read the head note. I had to go over there and actually pick it up. So we lost, 5-4. You can infringe a patent to a lower life form by using, you know, a higher life form.
[Lower Third]
9:15 AM
15-minutes before press conference
< Nadège Adam > Come in. Did we have a…… on the phone we have the coalition members essentially for the interveners.
[Lower Third]
Voice of Terry Zakreski
Schmeiser’s Lawyer
< Terry Zakreski > Well hello everybody, it’s not the victory that we had hoped for, it is a victory for Percy. He was faced with about a $200 000 judgment on him that was set aside today and I think that, you know that makes a pretty big difference to us. They had writs of execution registered against his land and goods and against his farm assets so those will all go.
We came very close on that validity issue, a 5-4 split, you know, almost.
< Nadège Adam > Percy do you want to say anything?
<Percy Schmeiser> Well, what I’d like to say that my wife and I have brought it as far as we could. We always wanted it to go to the Supreme Court, and although it was a personal victory for myself the whole issue of patenting life forms or a gene and putting into life forms and then control of it, I think now will have to be addressed by the parliament of Canada.
[Lower Third]
Voice of Pat Mooney
ETC Group
< Pat Mooney > The bad news is you have to run for parliament now Percy.
[Background Noise: Laughing]
< Terry Zakreski > So ends a long and hard fought legal battle and we think a well fought legal battle. We raised four grounds of appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada and as it ends or as it turns out only one of those grounds of appeals made it across the finish line. But the foregrounds of appeal where simply that the patent really didn’t extend into farmers field, it would allow a company that patents a gene or a cell to control plants in which they incorporate their gene and cell.
[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 1st Monsanto’ patent to a gene and cell should not give them control over seeds and plants
< Terry Zakreski > The second ground was that since Percy didn’t spray his crops with Roundup he didn’t use their patent.
[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 2nd Percy did not spray his crops with the herbicide Roundup so how could he infringe the patent
< Terry Zakreski > The third ground was when you have somebody who comes into possession of patented material they should at least enjoy the right to continue to save and reuse seed as they have always done.
[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 3rd Farmers should always have the right to use their own seeds and plants
< Terry Zakreski > And the fourth ground of appeal was that there was no profit earned in this case because Percy never benefited from the presence of the Roundup Ready gene in his fields and that is that the one that the majority of the court found favour with and set aside the lower court judgment that Percy was to turn over his profits from the crop that he grew in 1998.
[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 4th Since Percy did not benefit from Monsanto’s GE canola he should not have to pay them anything
< Terry Zakreski > And also the other thing that court did as there is as significant as they said was that each parties was to bare their own costs and there was approximately $200,000 judgment that was set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada today.
[Lower Third]
Terry Boehm
National Farmers Union
< Terry Boehm > What this issue is fundamentally about is control. When a farmer plants a seed, tied up in that seed he is planting hope, he is planting hope for his family, for his future and ultimately for a bountiful harvest. He is not planting Monsanto’s patented gene, and unfortunately this court ruling is allowing seeds to become a tool of oppression now.
[Lower Third]
David Commons
CBC Reporter
< David Commons > Mr. Schmeiser this has been a long extensive personal battle over here, a long expensive personal crusade for you. Where do you go from here?
<Percy Schmeiser> I really believe as of this morning, my battle is over. I have brought it as far as it could all the way to the Supreme Court, and as I said before it was a personal victory for me in regards to the awarding of costs, but I believe that in my heart I will always be fighting for the rights of farmers – always, to be able to use your seed from year to year.
So, as I said the battle ends for me today but not the battle in my heart.
[Text] The Fight for Life
[Lower Third]
David Suzuki
Geneticist and Author
<David Suzuki >In the future, biotechnology may in fact be a very important part of the environmental, and the health and the food crisis that we are
going to encounter in the coming years. But believe me, it is far too soon
to have any of this stuff in our food stream, in our medical stream or out in open fields. It’s far too soon.
[Lower Third]
Ralph Nader
Lawyer and Consumer Advocate
< Ralph Nader > This is a technology that is far ahead of the science that must be its governing discipline. Whenever you have a gap between a technology that has been deployed, in this case millions of acres, and the science that must be discovered and tested, you have trouble. We saw that with nuclear power and radioactive waste, we saw that with motor vehicles and photo chemical smog.
[Lower Third]
Darrin Qualman
National Farmers Union
< Darrin Qualman >You can take a table and start stalking up the peer reviewed academic papers that have been published in journals on the health
effects of GM crops and it is a tiny tiny stalk. We might not need 2000
such reports, we might not even need a 1000 but you think with a new technology that each and every one of us was going to eat that you would need a couple of hundred, but they don’t exist.
[Lower Third]
Brewster Kneen
Author of Farmageddon
< Brewster Kneen >We don’t have a tradition of critical thinking about technology.
[Lower Third]
Dr. Nettie Wiebe
Farmer and Professor of Ethics
<Dr. Nettie Wiebe> There is a presumption that technological change is progress.
[Lower Third]
Dr. Vandana Shiva
Physicist and Ecologist
< Dr. Vandana Shiva> That so much of what is being talked about as an advance actually has nothing to offer us except hazards and control. It’s an advance in control; it’s a brilliant advance in control.
[Lower Third]
Louise Schmeiser
Farmer
<Louise Schmeiser > Everything is born of a seed. Like people, plants, animals, it’s seed. If they can control that, look what they can all control. It’s to the point of scary.
< Brewster Kneen > We just need to look at what seed they want control of, its clearly a lucrative business….we all have to eat.
< Devlin Kuyek > The seed saving of course is a huge obstacle to the private seed industry.
< Brewster Kneen > And if you can get control of the major staple crops by owning the seed you can charge whatever you want.
< Devlin Kuyek > If you make seed saving a criminal activity, well that opens up a large market.
< Brewster Kneen > I can see a scenario where the farmers will end up with fewer and fewer farmers and they will be basically growing on contract for the companies.
[Lower Third]
Devlin Kuyek
Researcher for GRAIN
< Devlin Kuyek > You will see how it’s played out with Percy, how patents can undermine these traditional practices.
< Darrin Qualman > I think that is an absolute case study in how this works and for every Percy Schmeiser there is out there that is publicly saying hey I am being attacked by Monsanto, there is many many farm families that have been forced to sign gag order confidentiality agreements and they are not talking and they never can talk, and if they talk they lose the farm.
< Dr. Vandana Shiva > Then pollution is not the problem, it’s the way of owning farmers fields like they did in the case of Percy Schmeiser. You pollute and you own. You’ve got patents and no responsibility.
< Percy Schmeiser > I would say that if you go to any canola field now, I don’t care where, you would find GMO in it.
[Lower Third]
Dr. Rene Van Acker
University of Manitoba
< Dr. Rene Van Acker > The outcomes of the supreme Court trial is that Percy Schmeiser was guilty of patent infringement on the basis of the gene being there, and yet the gene is everywhere.
< Percy Schmeiser > I phoned up a couple of seed companies this spring and if I wanted to seed canola, I want pure canola seed. They just laugh at you. They said there is no such thing.
< Dr. Rene Van Acker > Some of the work we did and work that Ag Canada did that showed that canola seed lots were contaminated with transgenes. So what that meant is that a farmer could buy non-GM canola seed and they had a better than 50% chance of having GM genes in their non-GM canola seeds or having Roundup Ready gene in their non-Roundup Ready canola.
< Percy Schmeiser > Where is our purity with registration, certification, pedigree seeds now?
< Dr. Rene Van Acker > It’s almost impossible for farmers to avoid it.
< Darrin Qualman >If the corporation took on the farmer, although the farmer was very courageous in being willing to stand up and risk more by going public.
<Percy Schmeiser> I might have won or lost this battle but the war continues. The war will continue against these corporations.
[Lower Third]
Nadège Adam
Council of Canadians
< Nadège Adam > Just to know the power of that company, Monsanto, and it only took two people to take that stand to rally an entire world behind them.
<Percy Schmeiser> You cannot fight the battle alone and I have people helping me from all over the world.
< Dr. Nettie Wiebe > There is internationally a tremendous amount of support for the Percy Schmeiser case. It just speaks to how worried people are about that interface now between the corporate power and small farmers.
< Nadège Adam > From the onset Percy’s battle in Canada has been portrayed as a David vs. Goliath story, and it is very much like that. But by the time, you know, the hearing was done what the papers were talking about was should we or should we not allow the patenting of life forms.
< Priscilla Settee > You know we never believed in our life time that life could become commodified.
< Dr. Nettie Wiebe > How did we ever come to the view that it was appropriate to claim ownership of genetic material and life forms and the replication thereof. That’s as my kids would say really sketchy.
< Nadège Adam > What we need is for constituents to make it very clear to its politicians that this is unacceptable.
< Percy Schmeiser > Now it is up to the parliament of Canada, the people of Canada, to decide. We could not do anymore than that.
<Ralph Nader> If there is one thing that every politician I have ever met has, it’s a great finger to the wind. And so it’s our job to give them a lot of wind.
[Image: Fade out to black screen]
[Music: Begins]
[Text] In their early 70’s, Percy and Louise continue to farm in Saskatchewan
[Image: Photo montage of the Schmeiser’s]
[Text] Most recently, Percy and Louise have taken Monsanto to small claims court for $140
[Text] Seeking cleanup costs for the contamination of their organic garden with Monsanto’s GE canola
[Text] Since the original lawsuit, Percy and Louise have traveled all over the world speaking about the impacts of GE crops
[Text] The Schmeiser’s have received many international awards for fighting for farmers’ rights and the environment
[Text] Percy after he received the Mahatma Gandhi award for his non-violent service to humanity
[Text] Presented to him in Delhi, October 2000
[Text] People from all over the world continue to send them letters of support
[Image: letter of support – “You have inspired people across the world by your perseverance in spite of great odds”]
[Text] This film is dedicated to Percy and Louise Schmeiser
[Music: Ends]
<Louise Schmeiser > I’ve been asked why did you do it…many times you know I was asked that. But I say, I guess you believe in something and you think it could make a change, you work at it.
[Text] A Dead Crow Production
Written, Directed, Shot,
and Edited by:
Ian Mauro
Executive Producer:
Stephane McLachlan
Additional Videography:
Mel Yestrau
Corey Toews
Jim Sanders
Additional Editing:
Corey Toews
Sound Engineering:
Norman Dugas Production
Photography:
Ian Mauro
Film participants
(in order of appearance):
Percy Schmeiser
David Suzuki
Nadege Adam
Vandana Shiva
Priscilla Settee
Maude Barlow
Nettie Wiebe
Ralph Nader
Michelle Swenarchuk
Ann Clark
Nathan Busch
Steven Shrybman
Terry Zakreski
Andrew Kimbrell
Terry Boehm
Darrin Qualman
Brewster Kneen
Louise Schmeiser
Devlin Kuyek
Rene Van Acker
Special thanks to:
Council of Canadians
ETC Group
National Farmers Union
Research Foundation for
Science, Technology,
and Ecology
Sierra Club
International Center for
Technology Assessment
The Schmeiser Family
Music:
Redsayno
‘Ballad for the mining towns’
‘Open spaces, nothing holy’
Phil Vernon
‘Ballad of Percy Schmeiser’
Christian Dugas
‘D-day’
‘Finale’
Chilliwack
‘Patent on the wind’
Archival Material:
Ralph Nader and Maude Barlow’s appearance courtesy of the Council of Canadians and their conference on ‘Science and the public good’
U2 album cover
courtesy of Negativland
Supreme Court Footage courtesy of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). This footage cannot be used for purposes other than education and training and is
non- transferable to other third parties. Copyright to this footage is owned by the SCC.
Common Ground cover courtesy of Common
Ground Publishing Corp.
Schmeiser family photos courtesy of Percy and Louise Schmeiser
Research:
Ian Mauro
Stephane McLachlan
Peer Reviewed Articles:
Pryme, I. and Lembcke, R. 2003. In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Foods and Feeds – With Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials. Journal of Nutrition and Health
Friesen, L., Nelson, A., and Van Acker, R. 2003 Evidence of Contamination of Pedigreed canola (Brassica Napus) Seed lots in Western Canada With Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistant Traits. Agronomy Journal. 95:
1342-1347
Downey, K. and Beckie, H. 2002. Report on Project Entitled ‘Isolation Effectiveness in Canola Pedigree Seed Production’ Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada. Saskatoon Research Centre.
Acknowledgements to:
Elois Yaxley
Sara Coumantarikis
Jason Andrich
Mark Achbar
Jennifer Abbott
The Environmental
Conservation Lab (ECL)
The Harvest Moon Society
Food Security Assembly
Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC)
The Learning Network
Global environmental
and Outdoor Education
Council (GEOEC)
The Forum on Privatization
and the Public Domain
The David Suzuki
Foundation
Important websites
Shot on location in:
Ottawa, Ontario
Toronto, Ontario
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bruno, Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Dundurn, Saskatchewan
Edmonton, Alberta
Support for this film was provided by the Council of Canadians and Dead Crow Productions