Journal Interrobang's Journal: Jurassic Farm: Monsanto, Schmeiser, and Life Itself
I have in front of me, as we not-speak, a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet for Monsanto Roundup. Speaking from a discourse analysis point of view, it's really a marvellous document. (Bet you didn't know safety information could be so much fun.)
Just as an aside, my boss the Industrial Hygienist and P.Eng., CRSP tells me that only some hundreds (less than 1000) of the industrial chemicals we use and are surrounded by daily have ever been adequately tested for safety. Now, before anyone goes panicking, note that they usually find out about the unsafe ones before it's terribly too late -- although I'm sure that's small consolation to those who get hit with something like phocomelia or asbestosis.
In any case, the document makes for interesting reading. Their version of "slightly toxic" (Section III) is rather interesting, although it probably has a specific (legal) meaning within the field. See also this document for further illumination. Some interesting tidbits found within the MSDS say, "Reformulation is prohibited" and "See individual container label for repackaging limitations" (you can see a version for yourself at http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/safety/msds/Roundup.PDF [requires Acrobat reader, yeah, yeah])...which is under the "Warning Statements" subsection, and indicates to me that Monsanto is pretty worried about warning people about something about their "low toxicity" herbicide -- and it isn't a health effect. Those warnings read to this discourse analyst like "Don't mess with our intellectual property, or we'll mess with you."
Of course, that's nothing new. Monsanto is well-known as being almost as tenacious as Harlan Ellison (but considerably more well-funded) in the pursuit of defending its IP.
Which brings us, after a lengthy and circuitous diversion, to the case of Percy Schmeiser. To quote from an informative article by a researcher at the University of Guelph (known for its agricultural college, incidentally), "The Crime of Percy Schmeiser: Let us first be clear what Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser was found guilty of. He was found guilty of a) having Monsanto genetics on his land, and b) not advising Monsanto to come and fetch it. He was not found guilty of brownbagging - obtaining the seed fraudulently. Indeed, all such allegations were dropped at the actual hearing, due to lack of evidence.
"Regardless, in his 29 March 2001 decision (click on decisions), Judge W. Andrew MacKay made it clear that how it got there didn't matter anyway. The guilt was the same. Specifically, "Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola...is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement..." Ok, that's consistent with the (sometimes confounding) legal principle that ignorance of the law is no defense, but in this case seems a little misapplied, or at least extreme. Especially considering that Monsanto itself can't obey its own 'law':
The impossibility of reproductive isolation - both on-farm and post harvest - is nowhere better illustrated than recent occurrence of contamination within Monsanto's own Roundup Ready 'Quest' canola. Seed with an unapproved RR gene was found to contaminate bags carrying seed with the approved RR gene, obliging the urgent recall of thousands of bags of seed, some of which was already on-farm and being sown. This is just the latest example of cross contamination within the seed trade itself, of which StarLink contamination in the corn to be sown in 2001 is perhaps the best known example.
How then can farmers be held accountable for something which the seed trade itself cannot do?
Well, they can't, and even Monsanto knows it. So, Monsanto's position - which the judge inexplicably accepted - is that all the farmer has to do is call them up and they'll come out and deal with it. No matter how the proprietary genes got there, the judge held that the farmer is accountable for it, and they are obliged to inform Monsanto about it - or risk the fate of Schmeiser.
...among others.
All of which is a pretty explicit example of the tenet expressed so axiomatically in Jurassic Park that "life will find a way." Of course. Life is programmed to diffuse itself as broadly as possible (one of the reasons, incidentally, why human beings enjoy sex: those who didn't died out!), and in this case it's succeeding, a not altogether unexpected outcome, in fact. Someone should inform Monsanto's lawyers, although we know they already know -- and that's why they perhaps can't be trusted as far as some of us might like. In this case, the discourse is clear, and they're calling the (rhetorical) shots.
Just as an aside, my boss the Industrial Hygienist and P.Eng., CRSP tells me that only some hundreds (less than 1000) of the industrial chemicals we use and are surrounded by daily have ever been adequately tested for safety. Now, before anyone goes panicking, note that they usually find out about the unsafe ones before it's terribly too late -- although I'm sure that's small consolation to those who get hit with something like phocomelia or asbestosis.
In any case, the document makes for interesting reading. Their version of "slightly toxic" (Section III) is rather interesting, although it probably has a specific (legal) meaning within the field. See also this document for further illumination. Some interesting tidbits found within the MSDS say, "Reformulation is prohibited" and "See individual container label for repackaging limitations" (you can see a version for yourself at http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/safety/msds/Roundup.PDF [requires Acrobat reader, yeah, yeah])...which is under the "Warning Statements" subsection, and indicates to me that Monsanto is pretty worried about warning people about something about their "low toxicity" herbicide -- and it isn't a health effect. Those warnings read to this discourse analyst like "Don't mess with our intellectual property, or we'll mess with you."
Of course, that's nothing new. Monsanto is well-known as being almost as tenacious as Harlan Ellison (but considerably more well-funded) in the pursuit of defending its IP.
Which brings us, after a lengthy and circuitous diversion, to the case of Percy Schmeiser. To quote from an informative article by a researcher at the University of Guelph (known for its agricultural college, incidentally), "The Crime of Percy Schmeiser: Let us first be clear what Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser was found guilty of. He was found guilty of a) having Monsanto genetics on his land, and b) not advising Monsanto to come and fetch it. He was not found guilty of brownbagging - obtaining the seed fraudulently. Indeed, all such allegations were dropped at the actual hearing, due to lack of evidence.
"Regardless, in his 29 March 2001 decision (click on decisions), Judge W. Andrew MacKay made it clear that how it got there didn't matter anyway. The guilt was the same. Specifically, "Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola...is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement..." Ok, that's consistent with the (sometimes confounding) legal principle that ignorance of the law is no defense, but in this case seems a little misapplied, or at least extreme. Especially considering that Monsanto itself can't obey its own 'law':
The impossibility of reproductive isolation - both on-farm and post harvest - is nowhere better illustrated than recent occurrence of contamination within Monsanto's own Roundup Ready 'Quest' canola. Seed with an unapproved RR gene was found to contaminate bags carrying seed with the approved RR gene, obliging the urgent recall of thousands of bags of seed, some of which was already on-farm and being sown. This is just the latest example of cross contamination within the seed trade itself, of which StarLink contamination in the corn to be sown in 2001 is perhaps the best known example.
How then can farmers be held accountable for something which the seed trade itself cannot do?
Well, they can't, and even Monsanto knows it. So, Monsanto's position - which the judge inexplicably accepted - is that all the farmer has to do is call them up and they'll come out and deal with it. No matter how the proprietary genes got there, the judge held that the farmer is accountable for it, and they are obliged to inform Monsanto about it - or risk the fate of Schmeiser.
All of which is a pretty explicit example of the tenet expressed so axiomatically in Jurassic Park that "life will find a way." Of course. Life is programmed to diffuse itself as broadly as possible (one of the reasons, incidentally, why human beings enjoy sex: those who didn't died out!), and in this case it's succeeding, a not altogether unexpected outcome, in fact. Someone should inform Monsanto's lawyers, although we know they already know -- and that's why they perhaps can't be trusted as far as some of us might like. In this case, the discourse is clear, and they're calling the (rhetorical) shots.
