We would like to add an idea to the GM debate that we feel is being missed. It seems obvious to us that who is right or wrong will make little practical difference in the courts. The biotech companies and their PR firms will win in the courts and in the political arena because they have the money it takes to do so. As long as enormous campaign contributions are being made and law firms are willing to work for clients with deep pockets without regard for right and wrong, the party with the most money will often win.

We are certainly not suggesting giving up. The activism and court battles should be continued and supported as long as innocent people are being victimized. What we are saying though is that there are many other things that we can and should be doing right now.

It's very important this spring that farmers find and plant unpatented varieties of seed wherever possible. This is important not only to maintain the ability of farmers to legally produce their own seed, but also to keep these varieties alive for the future. There are still many very good public varieties left, but in a few years they will be gone if farmers don't continue to grow them. There are already many small grain varieties that have been discontinued and are only still available because farmers and small seed dealers are keeping them available. Most farmers have gotten so used to selling their crop at harvest and then going to the elevator to buy new seed for the next season that they don't even notice the new "patented seed" tags replacing the old familier ones.

Few farmers realize that in buying patented seed varieties, they are giving up a basic right as old as agriculture itself. Current seed law has some pretty strong teeth - while varieties protected under the Plant Variety Protection Act do allow farmers to save a small amount of seed for their own use, many newer varieties are covered by stronger Plant Utility Patents which prevent any saving of seed, or using the protected variety in breeding - even amateur breeding or 'sporting'. If the current trend continues, perhaps in as few as 5-6 years, the Terminator gene won't be nearly as critical as will be the laws preventing farmers from saving seed from virtually all the varieties available, and preventing farmers from doing any amateur on-farm breeding from protected varieties.

Often seed companies took their original parent material from land races produced by farmer breeders. In fact, there was far more genetic diversity in our seed stock and far more public plant breeding programs thriving in the world before profits from such efforts were protected by seed patents "to ensure that companies would continue producing new varieties for us." It reminds us of a cartoon where God is reading a newspaper article announcing new seed patent laws. The caption reads "Hmph, seems somebody owes ME about three and a half billion years worth of back royalties!"

Getting this message out this spring is very urgent. We can only grow our own seed legally if we have unpatented varieties available. Even 'cleaning out' GM contamination from a seed lot of a patented variety and then growing clean, GM free seed from it is illegal under current laws. This could be construed as 'breeding from protected varieties' even if the farmer's aim is to remove the genetics that made the variety novel and patentable to begin with!

How many farmers have both bought seed from the big biotech companies and also sent contributions to defend Percy Schmeiser? Many organic farmers don't realize, by buying that seed, that they are rewarding Monsanto for contaminating most of Canada's canola land. By doing business of any kind with the biotech giants, farmers are supporting their actions. We can make a bigger difference by getting this message out to farmers to take back control of their seed supply than by trying to get Monsanto (or DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) to change their ways.

The problem with arguing about the Percy Schmeiser case is that we are mixing two very different arguments into one. It's obvious to us that Mr Schmeiser violated the law as Monsanto (and Judge MacKay) wanted it defined and is paying a high price for that. It's also obvious to us that the law is unjust and morally wrong. We feel that Dale and Pat are right in contending that Mr Schmeiser violated the law as Judge MacKay interprets it. We also find it tragic that Judge MacKay did not have the courage or sense of justice to make a strong moral statement in favor of the traditional rights of farmers to provide for themselves.

Our point is that we need to use our energy do all the concrete and legal things that we can do right now. We still can find good unpatented seed of varieties of most crops today. In a very few years, this may not be posible. We can do ourselves and the world a lot of good by working to produce our own seed. It is important to educate other farmers so that they understand what is happening to their right to grow their own seed and what can be done now to preserve that right.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **