October 15, 2013

Contamination, “Intellectual Property”, and the Need to Abolish GMOs


A basic premise of the anti-GMO movement, confirmed by the historical record, is that GMOs and the corporations pushing them are totalitarian in two main ways. They’re physically totalitarian in that GMOs inevitably contaminate other crops and the general environment. And they’re economically totalitarian in that they seek total domination of humanity through total domination of the food supply. Monsanto has often publicly avowed this goal.
These confirm that humanity cannot co-exist with GMOs, and that we must totally abolish them.
There are many ways these two threads combine. I implied one of these in yesterday’s post. I’ll make the connection explicit now.
1. Environmental contamination is inevitable, including of wild progenitors.
2. The intellectual property regime is one of the cartel’s weapons toward its goal of total enclosure of agriculture and food. In cases like that of Percy Schmeiser the legal system has decreed: The GMO cartel has the right to commit trespass and tort with its proprietary material; it has the right to damage or destroy the property of other farmers (their crops and soil) through this contamination; the full cost of this trespass and property damage is to be borne by the farmer (and, if he can pass the cost on, by the consumer and society as a whole); no matter how the farmer’s crop was polluted, the corporate patent-holder and polluter can sue him, win damages, confiscate his crop, etc. We see how “intellectual property” is not the modest concept envisioned in the US constitution, but an aggressive weapon of organized crime.
When we combine (1) with (2) we can see how the cartel can use the contamination it causes, whether this is from intentional pollution or the inevitable inertia of contamination, to try to assert legal ownership, and therefore political domination and control, of vast swaths of organic and conventional (but contaminated) crops, and of wild plants as well.
The Schmeiser case was in Canada, but Canadian policy is typical of the bureaucratic, legislative, and judicial policy which is increasingly predominant at the nexus of agriculture and intellectual property. This is the most dangerous politico-economic combination greed and powerlust has ever come up with.
Once again we have the human imperative: Total abolition of GMOs. There can be no co-existence. 




  1. You’ve been prolific of late, Russ.

    Your point (2) is one of the reasons I asked for resources regarding legal cases involving GMOs, as I wonder if lawyers and judges have really considered the conflict between real property and intellectual property that GMOs represent. The only case that I’ve seen briefing on was presented as a pure IP case. Personally, I think traditional tort law provides the tools for abolition of GMOs, but it would be better if there were a legislative solution. I won’t hold my breath . . .

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — October 15, 2013 @ 11:18 am

    • This is the new routine here. Right now I’m still in the research phase, and the phase of working out my strategy. So for a while many of the posts will be about the latest news, with more and more pre-planned ones as I go. I’ll have a special emphasis on developing the themes of crop and environmental contamination, and concentration in the seed sector along with the declarations, lawlessness, and aggressive behavior of the cartel. This will establish the thesis that the GMO regime is a totalitarian phenomenon with which we cannot have “co-existence” (to use the propaganda term of art), but which must be abolished. Therefore we need to become abolitionists and build a movement based upon that principle.

      As time goes by I’ll integrate all aspects of the problem.

      Did the reference I give you help at all? Those endnotes list lots of specific cases.

      I’ll need to look around more to find the names and decisions of all the important cases. Although I haven’t yet read the Canadian “supreme court” Schmeiser decision, the analyses describe it as a judicial-activist way of extending patents to the seeds and plants themselves, even though Canadian law allows only the patenting of the initial gene insertion. According to what I read about this, in Canada it’s legal to save and plant Monsanto seeds. M simply used the corporatist courts to extend its IP power and prerogative in a way not allowed by the law itself.

      I wish luck to any lawyer who wants to keep plugging away at the tort angle. This may need a counter-education program for politicians, lawyers, judges, the same way “law and economics” did. (Unfortunately, we have far less money for such programs.) The movement needs to be clear with this and any other tactic that the ultimate goal is abolition.

      Is that kind of public and professional education the kind of thing you’re planning, with your IP presentation?

      Comment by Russ — October 15, 2013 @ 1:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: