People,

Here is an area I do not see covered in the discussion, which is critical to growers throughout Oregon, the United States, and the world. There is an economic and property rights question which is critical to the survival of growers of all sizes in all locations.

As shown in the Monsanto/Percy Schmeiser case in Canada (applicable to the US because of NAFTA and GATT), WHEN these GE crops escape onto adjacent lands and then spread beyond, it puts the growers on these lands at extreme economic risk. (The decision can be reviewed on line at http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html )

The court determined that the mere fact Monsanto's patented GE crops were growing on Percy's land was sufficient, in and of itself, to be an infringement of patent rights. The fact that Percy did not plant the crops, did not want to grow the crops (and in fact was unaware that he was), and was unable (even with Monsanto's help) to eradicate the crops from his land, was of no significance. Percy was found guilty of patent infringement, and subject to the fees and restrictions of the license used by Monsanto with its authorized growers. This decision was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and upheld.

Nor was Percy able to recover damages for the loss of his own canola seed line, the product of decades of development and a major source of income. Once contaminated with Monsanto's GE line, it was no longer his, nor were growers interested in buying it.

In this particular instance, Monsanto's license calls for a "technology fee" for each hectare of land on which seed containing their GE gene is grown. This means that if Percy ever allows seed with Monsanto's patented gene (either from Monsanto or from a wild cross) to sprout on his land (and no one knows how to eliminate that) he must pay Monsanto's fees. As other growers who also did not plant Monsanto's seed, but had crops contaminated with it found out, Monsanto is actively approaching growers throughout Western Canada and demanding signed contracts and payment of technology fees based on the Schmeiser case.

Incidentally, this fee is unregulated, and is not likely to be. This means Monsanto can charge whatever they wish, increasing the fee until growers can no longer afford it and are forced into bankruptcy.

Additionally, please note that this infringement is not limited to commercial growers, but to anyone growing (intentionally or not) any seed containing patented genes. Nor is it limited to Monsanto, but applies to any holder of patented life.

As a sideline I would like to point out that this would extend to any land anywhere, public or private, agricultural or not, How would you like Monsanto to knock on the door to your home and present you with a bill for technology fees for the plants growing from seed blown into your yard? This court decision upholds this scenario.

It seems that, at the very least, any patent holder of GE materials should be held responsible for damage caused by the unintentional or illegal spread of their material, and prevented from demanding any compensation for the unintentional use by others of their patented material. THAT should be in these regulations.

I am a physician practicing in northeast Portland, with a BS in Biology. I'm really encouraged to see that Oregon is taking the initiative to control and regulate biopharm crops, and am pleased with a number of the recommendations. What I will comment on here is where I feel strongly that these recommendations fall short.

First, you are recommending encouragement of the use of non-food crops for outdoor growing. This is totally unacceptable. None of these crops has been tested appropriately for it to be known whether this is a wise move or not. There have been virtually no clinical trials nor any safety testing in humans or even animals. In all matters of science of such potential gravity, the obvious requirement has always been to prove safety before exposing the public and our world to potentially irreversible damage. You have no idea what the consequences of such a move would be, and intuition and reason are completely insufficient to predict the potential damage that could be done. One thing is for sure; it is virtually assured that there will be some level of contamination, whether by pollen flow, equipment, animals or human error. What that contamination will cause is entirely unpredictable.

I see that you are recommending applicants post a bond or demonstrate financial responsibility to cover potential damages resulting from such a contamination incident. Frankly, I find this to be insane. We have only to look at past "contaminations" to know that companies routinely resist taking responsibility for the messes they make, often throwing their considerable wealth into lawers to get out of meeting their agreed upon obligations. They are often successful, leaving the burden of clean-up to fall on the public. Worse, the impact is often such that it is virtually impossible to totally clean up the mess no matter how much money and effort is thrown at it. Just because these would be "non-food crops" doesn't mean they won't some how affect other crops, plants or animals that consume them even if humans do not. Why are we even considering such an approach? We are dealing with nature here. This is not some benign high school science project. Once genetic material is out it will be impossible to contain and could cause catastrophic damage to our environment the world over. Not all the money in the world nor the most dedicated clean-up crew can guarantee a successful outcome after a contamination occurs.

 

The public should not be put in the position of being guinea pigs in a vast biological experiment! The burden of proof in terms of safety lies with these Biopharm companies, and MUST be established BEFORE any trials are done outdoors. Given past research fraud and cover-up, there must be well funded, reliable, independent research done as well. Independent research conducted in other countries has shown these types of crops to be extremely dangerous and unpredictable. Their findings have been so dire that many respectable countries have banned such crops entirely! Are we to ignore their findings, fail to do our own research and then allow ourselves to be the ones being tested upon? This is madness! Frankly,there's no guarantee even in greenhouse trials that no contamination will occur, but it WILL occur if trials are done outdoors.

Next, was the glaring omission of any recommendations for the regulation of industrial crops. Why is that? This isn't acceptable. Industrial crops also must be proven to be safe prior to being allowed to be grown here (or are they already being grown here?).

 

Biopharm crops clearly pose a greater threat to our national and world security than any terrorist attack ever could. The companies involved in these crops have massive financial incentives (and to be generous, dubious ethical standards) to push their agenda forward at the public's expense. The fact that our state is taking on a more stringent regulatory role that the national goverent is a great relief to us all, but your recommendations, while a good start, are not providing an adequate level of protection for public health, the environment or farmers and food processors. Not by a long shot.

 

My assessment: Good first draft, but needs significant work! Thank you for all you are doing to safeguard us and hold biopharm companies to account. Please, don't give an inch where our wellfare is concerned.