The Genetics Controversy - Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature - page 141

input suppliers, farms, millers, slaughterers, packing businesses, and
processors than ever before. Such vertical integration is a concern to many,
with the UK House of Lords stating: 'There is a concern, shared by farmers,
witnesses and ourselves, that the powers of a few agrochemical/seed companies are already
great, and will become greater, over the process of producing (developing and growing) GM
crops.' 30
Since many genetically modified organisms are being commercially
produced by large corporations, there is intense interest in how power
relations and property rights will play out. 31 Important questions arise.
To what extent, for example, are these private interests concerned only with
their shareholders' gain, or are they willing to engage with farmers of all
types, both in industrialized and developing countries? For the first
generation of genetically modified crops, reduced use of insecticides,
combined with increased yields, should mean greater benefits for farmers.
Companies, however, charge a technology fee, on top of seed costs; to date,
this appears to capture most or all of the margin in certain systems. But
if the genetically modified organism fails to deliver promised benefits to
farmers, then corporate-farmer relations may begin to fail. In 1998, 55
Mississippi farmers complained to their state department of agriculture
and commerce's arbitration council on the grounds that their genetically
modified cotton had lower yields or had completely failed. Most settled
out of court; three were awarded nearly US$2 million in damages. A year
later, 200 cotton farmers from Georgia, Florida and North Carolina were
engaged in a legal dispute with Monsanto after crop failure of B.t. and
herbicide-tolerant cotton.
A critical issue relates to who gets (or owns) the benefits of the new
technology. Patent law is vital because it treats genes and genetic engin-
eering in the same way as any other invention. To be patented in Europe,
as covered by the European Convention, an invention must be 'new', 'not
obvious', 'capable of industrial application' and 'patentable subject matter'.
An invention must add to the current state of knowledge. A new method
of isolating a gene qualifies, as does an isolated gene with a new activity;
but a gene in a human body does not qualify. It is possible, however, to
patent an artificially synthesised gene or the replication of the genetic
information contained in the gene. The international Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) is important for property rights. It came into
force in December 1993, and has three aims - namely, the conservation
of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from genetic resources.
However, it remains difficult to allocate 'ownership' when genes interact
in highly complex ways to express characteristics. The conventional wheat
variety Veery, for example, was the product of more than 3000 different