Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser

From WikiMD's Food, Medicine & Wellness Encyclopedia

Supreme court of Canada in summer

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser (2004) is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning patent law and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This case highlighted the conflict between biotechnology companies' intellectual property rights and farmers' traditional practices. It revolved around Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan farmer, who was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement over the company's genetically modified Roundup Ready canola.

Background[edit | edit source]

Monsanto developed and patented a gene that made canola plants resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup. This allowed farmers to spray their fields with the herbicide, killing weeds while leaving the canola unharmed. Monsanto licensed this technology to farmers under a contract that prohibited saving and replanting seeds from the harvest. Percy Schmeiser, however, was found to have grown canola that contained Monsanto's patented gene without a license, leading to the lawsuit.

The Case[edit | edit source]

The central issue in Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser was whether Schmeiser had infringed Monsanto's patent by planting canola that contained Monsanto's patented gene, even though he claimed to have never purchased Monsanto's seeds but instead claimed that his crop was contaminated by pollen or seeds from neighboring fields.

Decision[edit | edit source]

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Monsanto, holding that Schmeiser had infringed Monsanto's patent. The Court found that the presence of the patented gene in Schmeiser's crop, regardless of how it arrived there, constituted use of the patented material. The Court's decision was controversial, as it seemed to prioritize patent rights over farmers' rights, raising concerns about the control of genetically modified genes and the impact on traditional farming practices.

Implications[edit | edit source]

The decision had significant implications for patent law, agriculture, and the rights of farmers. It confirmed the enforceability of patent rights on genetically modified genes in plants, setting a precedent for biotechnology companies to protect their intellectual property. However, it also sparked a debate about the ethics of patenting life forms and the potential for such patents to impact biodiversity and food security.

See Also[edit | edit source]

Wiki.png

Navigation: Wellness - Encyclopedia - Health topics - Disease Index‏‎ - Drugs - World Directory - Gray's Anatomy - Keto diet - Recipes

Search WikiMD


Ad.Tired of being Overweight? Try W8MD's physician weight loss program.
Semaglutide (Ozempic / Wegovy and Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) available.
Advertise on WikiMD

WikiMD is not a substitute for professional medical advice. See full disclaimer.

Credits:Most images are courtesy of Wikimedia commons, and templates Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY SA or similar.


Contributors: Prab R. Tumpati, MD