When worlds collide: Biotechnology meets organic farming in Hoffman v Monsanto

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 459-477

  Garforth, Kathryn ^a   Ainslie, Paige ^b  

^a Centre for International Sustainable Development Law   (Canada)

^b CISDL Research Group

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; ORGANIC FARMING;

EID: 33750459674     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eql031     Document Type: Article

References (115)

1. Hoffman v Monsanto Canada Inc., 2005 SKQB 225 (CanLII) [Hoffman].
2. Class Actions Act, S.S. 2001, c. C-12.01.
3. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was the federal government department responsible for assessing the applications at the time when Monsanto and AgrEvo applied for approval for unconfined release of their modified varieties of canola. The situation changed in 1997 when the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created for this purpose.
4. Hoffman, supra n 1 at paras 8-9.
5. Ibid at paras 8-10.
6. Ibid at para 19.
7. Ibid at para 20.
8. Ibid at para 21.
9. Rylands v Fletcher (1866), L.R. 1 Ex. 265;
10. (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
11. The Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84,c. E-10.2 ['EMPA'].
12. This law has been repealed and replaced by The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002, S.S. 2002, c. E-10.21 ['EMPA, 2002'].
13. The Environmental Assessment Act, S.S. 1979-80, c. E-10.1 ['EAA'].
14. 'Amended, Amended Statement of Claim' in the Court of Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, case no. 67 of 2002, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate - Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, available online at http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/pdf/amended-claim.pdf ['Statement of Claim'] at para 34.
15. Statement of Claim, supra n 12 at para 35.
16. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 38;
17. Statement of Claim, supra n 12 at para 36(a).
18. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 39 quoting para 44 of the statement of claim.
19. Anns v Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.) [Anns].
20. Although the Anns test was adopted in Canada and has been modified by subsequent judgments, it is worthwhile pointing out that it is no longer good law in the UK, see in particular Murphy v Brentwood District Council, [1991] 1 AC 398 (HL).
21. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 54.
22. Ibid at para 60.
23. Justice Smith adopts the term 'adventitious presence' as a more neutral term advocated by the defendants instead of the term 'contamination' used by the plaintiffs, Hoffman supra n 1 at para 11.
24. In their memorandum on their application for leave to appeal, the plaintiffs state that justice Smith's adoption of the term 'adventitious presence' as defined by the defendants illustrates that she 'started off on the wrong foot' and 'prejudge[d] the outcome of an action where it is alleged that there has been negligent and systemic contamination of the environment by GMOs', 'Memorandum of law on behalf of the prospective appellants' in the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, case no. 1148, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate - Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, available online at http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/pdf/ Memo_Appeal_Application.pdf ['Plaintiffs' memo'] at para 20.
25. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 63.
26. Ibid at para 64-65.
27. Ibid at para 66.
28. Ibid at para 67.
29. Ibid at para 71.
30. Ibid at para 72.
31. Ibid at paras 73 and 77-80.
32. Ibid at para 88.
33. Ibid at para 91.
34. Ibid at para 97.
35. Ibid at para 100.
36. Ibid at para 104.
37. R. v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Watson [1999] Env LR 310 (CA).
38. Ibid at para 105.
39. Ibid at para 106.
40. Ibid at para 108.
41. Ibid at para 112.
42. Ibid at para 113.
43. Ibid at para 114.
44. Ibid at para 122.
45. Ibid at para 122.
46. Ibid at para 123.
47. Ibid at para 127.
48. Ibid at para 129.
49. Ibid at para 131.
50. Ibid at para 132.
51. Ibid at para 138.
52. Ibid at para 146.
53. Ibid at para 146.
54. Ibid at para 150.
55. Ibid at para 154.
56. Ibid at para 157.
57. Definition of 'substance' in section 2 (bb) of the EMPA, 2002, supra n 10.
58. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 163.
59. Ibid at para 168.
60. Statement of Claim, supra n 12 at para 41.
61. EAA, supra n 11 at section 2 (d).
62. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 190.
63. Ibid at paras 191-192.
64. Ibid at para 193.
65. The plaintiffs have also raised the fact that Justice Smith did not return this point in their memorandum on the application for leave to appeal, Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at paras 24-25 of Schedule 'A'.
66. Hoffman, supra n 1 at para 40.
67. Ibid at para 72.
68. Ibid at para 23.
69. Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at para 22.
70. Ibid at para 28.
71. Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, 2002 SCC 76 (CanLII).
72. Monsanto Canada Inc. v Schmeiser, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 (CanLII) [Schmeiser].
73. For case comments on Schmeiser, see Philippe Cullet, 'Monsanto v Schmeiser. A Landmark Decision concerning Farmer Liability and Transgenic Contamination' (2005) 17 Journal of Environmental Law 83;
74. and Kathryn Garforth et al, 'Case Note: Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd v. Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company' (2004) 13 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 340.
75. In their memo for leave to appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the TUA 'clearly provided that ownership of the gene would remain with Monsanto', Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at para 51 of Schedule 'A'.
76. The authors have found American versions of the contract that explicitly vest ownership of the technology with Monsanto, but Canadian versions of the TUA do not appear to contain this clause; for the American TUA, see '2006 Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement', Farmsource: Monsanto US Ag Resource, available online at http://www.farmsource.com/images/pdf/ 2006%20EMTA%20Rev3.pdf The ownership clause is contained in the first bullet point under the heading 'Grower Receives from Monsanto' and states in part that 'Monsanto retains ownership of the Monsanto Technologies including the genes (for example, the Roundup Ready gene) and the gene technologies'.
77. For the Canadian TUA, see '2005 Monsanto TUA - English' (draft 20 April 2004), Monsanto Canada, available online at http://www.monsanto.ca/pdfs/ advantages/programs/example-TUA2005.pdf. Neither of these TUAs is for Roundup Ready canola, and it is possible that the plaintiffs are relying on a different version of the Canadian contract.
78. Schmeiser, supra n 67 at para 95.
79. Ibid at para 159.
80. Plant Breeders' Rights Act, S.C. 1990, c. 20.
81. The current version of the Plant Breeders' Rights Act enacts Canada's obligations under the 1978 version of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). The Act and the Convention include a presumed exemption to Plant Breeders' Rights that allows farmers to save seeds from protected plant varieties. The proposed amendments to the Act would have brought it into conformity with a more recent version of the Convention - UPOV 1991 - that makes the farmers exemption optional. The proposal to amend the Act has been dropped.
82. National Farmers Union, 'The Right to Save Seed: Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled', NFU, available online at http://thenfu.sasktelwebhosting.com/seed_saver/seedpetition.pdf.
83. Jeremy F. deBeer, 'Rights and Responsibilities in the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry' (2006) [unpublished] [deBeer, 'Rights and Responsibilities'] at 32-33.
84. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO Res. 3/2003, 3 November 2001 (entered into force 29 June 2004).
85. The eighth recitation in the preamble to the Treaty affirms 'that the rights recognized in this Treaty to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other propagating material ... are fundamental to the realization of Farmers' Rights, as well as the promotion of Farmers' Rights at national and international levels'. This does not actually state that Farmers' Rights include the right to save seed, and seed saving is not mentioned in the operational text of Article 9 on Farmers' Rights.
86. Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818 (entered into force 29 December 1993).
87. Conference of the Parties, Decision V/5, 'Agricultural biological diversity: Review of phase I of the programme of work and adoption of a multi-year work programme', see in particular, section III, para 23 which contains the de facto moratorium and paras 20, 22 and 25 which call for more research.
88. Conference of the Parties, Decision VIII/23, 'Agricultural biodiversity', at section C, para 1. Para 2 (b) of the decision also encourages further research within the mandate of decision V/5, section III.
89. Susan Safyan, 'Old MacDonald Had a Seed' (November 2005) 277 Alive Magazine, available online at http://www.alive.com/ 3858a6a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=636.
90. Canada's Agriculture, Food and Beverage Industry; Canada's Seed Industry' (23 December 2003), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, available online at http://www.sea.agr.gc.ca/supply/3319_e.htm.
91. Martin Phillipson, 'Giving Away the Farm? The Rights and Obligations of Biotechnology Multinationals: Canadian Developments' 16 The King's College Law Journal 362 (2005) at 372.
92. Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at paras 34-36.
93. See also Plaintiffs' memo at paras 50-53 of Schedule 'A'.
94. DeBeer, 'Rights and Responsibilities', supra n 74 at 26-29.
95. Ibid at 20-21.
96. citing A. M. Honoré, 'Ownership'in A. G. Guest (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) 107 and others.
97. Ibid at 27-28.
98. Jeremy deBeer, 'Reconciling Property Rights in Plants' 8 Journal of World Intellectual Property 5 (2005) at 13.
99. Bruce Ziff, 'Travels with my Plant: Monsanto v. Schmeiser Revisited' 2 University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal 493 (2005) at 503, University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, available online at http://www.uoltj.ca/articles/vol2.2/2005.2.2.uoltj.Ziff.493-509.pdf.
100. Christopher P. Rodgers, 'Liability for the Release of GMOs into the Environment: Exploring the Boundariesof Nuisance' 62 Cambridge Law Journal 371 (2003) at 380.
101. See also Jack Ralph Kloppenburg Jr., First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004, 2nd edn) at 282, where he characterises the commodification of the seed through, in part, intellectual property rights, as 'a vehicle for capital to gain an unprecedented degree of control over the shape of the crop production process as a whole'.
102. Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (New York: New Press, 2002), see, in particular, p 198-199.
103. Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1.
104. For a discussion of the Canadian government's application of the Access to Information Act in the context of biotechnology, see Kathryn Garforth, 'Balancing Industry Confidentiality with the Public Right of Access: The Case of Biotechnology in Canada', CISDL Working Paper, September 2005, Forum on Privatization and the Public Domain, available at http://www.forumonpublicdomain.ca/files/ CISDL_WP%20Access%20to%20Info.pdf at 7-16.
105. Other reports have also found deficiencies with the Canadian public's access to information on genetically modified organisms, see, for example, The Royal Society of Canada, Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada (Ottawa: The Royal Society of Canada, 2001), Royal Society of Canada, available online at http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/ foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf at 212-214 and recommendation 9.2
106. Peter Andrée and Lucy Sharratt, Genetically Modified Organisms and Precaution: Is the Canadian Government Implementing the Royal Society of Canada's Recommendations? (Ottawa: The Polaris Institute, 2004) at 11-13.
107. Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at para 11 of Schedule 'C'
108. 'GM canola spreading: Agriculture Canada report' CBC News (28 June 2002), CBC News, available online at http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/ national/2002/06/27/gncanolao20627.html.
109. Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at para 9 of Schedule 'C'.
110. Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at paras 8-9 of Schedule 'C'.
111. EAA, supra n 11 at section 7.
112. Plaintiffs' memo, supra n 19 at para 17 of Schedule 'C'.
113. Environment Act, C.C.S.M., c. E125, see the definition of 'development' in section 1(2), especially para (h) and the provisions on public hearings in sections to through 12
114. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12, see the factors for consideration in deciding whether to order an environmental impact assessment in section 44(3), especially para (c) and the requirement to publish an environmental impact assessment report in section 52.
115. There are six principles of sustainable development law: The principle of integration and interrelationship in relation to social, economic and environmental objectives; the duty of states to ensure sustainable use of natural resources; the principle of equity and the eradication of poverty; the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; precaution regarding human health, natural resources and ecosystems; the principle of public participation and access to information and justice; and the principle of good governance; International Law Association, Resolution 3/2002, New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, International Law Association, available online at , also reprinted in UN General Assembly, 57th session, UN Doc. A/57/329 (2002). It is beyond the bounds of this case note to discuss each of the principles in any detail, although the issue of access to information is considered above.