The Politics of Seed

by Karyn Medina Devin Myers Sabine Parrish

Calabaza (pumpkin) and calabacita (squash) seeds.

A Short History of the Politics of Seed

May 1930: Plant Patent Act (PPA) Here the United States Patent Office created a new type of patent (separate from utility patents), which covered all new breeds of plants and their asexually reproduced offspring. The act states that: [w]homever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. (35 U.S.C. 161) The language of the PPA is similar to that of acts covering utility patents, particularly the inclusion of distinct and new. Though the worlds very first patent act to grant patents on plants or any kind of life, it did not prevent competitors from cultivating similar varieties through their own means. Additionally, it did not place any restrictions on seed saving. 1961: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) UPOV (Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions vgtales) is an intergovernmental organization founded in Geneva with the goal of protecting new varieties of plants through international copyright laws. UPOV was the first international undertaking to standardize and protect plant IPRs across countries. Their convention has been updated over the years to reflect the continuously changing technology in the plant-breeding field, and the most recent 1991 act treats genetically engineered plants the same as plants bred with traditional techniques. At present, 68 countries are UPOV members.

Land race maize varieties from Mexico.

1970: Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) This was the establishment of a new office in the Department of Agriculture, completely separate from the patent office. The PVPA covered the sexual reproduction of plants, and was the first act to pose a serious threat to seed saving, as it stipulated that it gave breeders the right to exclude others from selling the variety, or offering it for sale, or reproducing it, or exporting it, or using it in producing a hybrid or different variety (7 U.S.C. 2483(a)(1)). Though it did not directly prohibit seed saving, it set the legal precedent. 1980: Diamond v. Chakrabarty When the U.S. Patent Office rejected the utility patent claim of General Electric microbiologist Ananda Chakrabarty, the case wound up in the Supreme Court. Chakrabarty had created a bacterium that was able to break down crude oil, and the Patent Office denied the claim on the basis that the USPTO could not grant patents on any living organism. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Chakrabarty, further granting that patents can be granted to anything under the sun that is made by man. This case was the landmark decision that led to the widespread patenting of life. Once bacteria became patentable, it was a short distance to the patenting of seeds, plant genes, and GM varieties, and after the Court declared nonnaturally occurring, nonhuman multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101 (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2105), multinational seed and chemical companies like Monsanto and Syngenta took advantage of the relaxed laws. 1990s- Substantial Equivalence Throughout the 1990s, many organizations adopted the principle of substantial equivalence, the idea that if GE foods demonstrate the same essential characteristics of their natural counterparts, then they are seen as just as safe. This allows many GE foods to bypass strict testing and regulation prior to being introduced onto the market. Biotech industry groups were the first major proponents of this theory, as it would ease the regulatory and financial pressures they were under, and also speed up the introduction of GE foods. Many

governmental bodies and international groups stand behind substantial equivalence today, including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Health Organization, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, and the WTO. 1994: TRIPS- Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights An international agreement officiated by the WTO, TRIPS provides for standardization of intellectual property rights throughout signatory nations. Coordinated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, TRIPS ensures patent rights for all inventors in all fieldsincluding biotechnologyand the WTO strongly enforces the agreement. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding TRIPS and how it unfairly gives advantage to developed countries with R&D capacities. 1994: Flavr Savr tomato released in United States The Flavr Savr tomato was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be deemed safe for human consumption within the United States. It was produced by Calgene Inc. with genetic modifications resulting in a longer shelf life, and supposedly more flavor. Unfortunately for Calgene, the Flavr Savr was not a hit with consumers. The problem was largely a combination of the tomato not being particularly delicious, and the publics wariness at new genetic technology. The company had banked on the tomato bringing in high profits, but it never made back its high R&D and production costs. In 1996, the struggling Calgene was purchased by Monsanto, and shortly thereafter, the Flavr Savr was pulled from shelves. 1996: Roundup Ready soybeans and canola introduced Roundup Ready soybeans were the first GM crop to be approved for growth in the United States. The same year, Roundup Ready canola received approval in Canada. By 1999, biotech canola was approved for planting in the U.S. as well. Today, almost 90% of soy and canola grown in the U.S. are biotech varieties. 1998: Delta & Pine Co. receives Control of Plant Gene Expression Patent Colloquially known as terminator technology, genetic use restriction technology (GURT) is where seeds are engineered to be sterile after their first productive year. In March of 1998, Delta & Pine (now owned by Monsanto) received U.S. Patent 5,723,765, protecting this controversial technology. GURT allows biotech corporations even greater control of their product, as it makes it effectively impossible for farmers to save any of their seed for planting the following year. Even if farmers save the seed, it will not work. This technology has solved the problem faced by seed companies from the beginningwith GURT, seeds can no longer be the product and the means of production. Farmers who use these seeds can no longer save their own seeds, and must purchase new ones every year. This means big profits and more security for companies who have this technology, and

problems for farmers who can no longer save seeds as they have done throughout history.

Chimera maize from The Acequia Institute.

2000: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety A supplementary agreement to the Convention of Biological Diversity, adopted on January 29, 2000, the goal is to protect biodiversity from the threat of genetically modified organisms. It gives parties the power to decline imports of GM crops and foods to protect their heritage biodiversity, and includes an advance informed agreement (AIA) policy to give countries knowledge and information surrounding GM foods in order to make informed decisions. The Protocol went into effect on September 11, 2003. 2000: Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Federal Court) Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan was sued by Monsanto Corporation after company agents found a high percentage of their Round-Up Ready canola in Schmeisers fields. Schmeiser had been farming for over 50 years without using GM crops, but his fields were contaminated through pollen drift from neighboring farms. Monsanto alleged that Schmeiser knowingly planted the Round-Up Ready canola from seeds saved from his contaminated field. As he had not signed a contract with Monsanto, the company sought $15,450.00 in general damages$25,000.00 for punitive and exemplary damages and profits in the amount of $105,000.00. Extensive testing of Schmeisers fields was conducted both by Monsanto agents and independent contractors hired by Schmeiser. Unsurprisingly, each side came to radically different conclusions; with Monsantos results showing that over 90% of Schmeisers canola was Round-Up Ready (a percentage that could not have been reached through simple cross-pollination, they maintained), and Schmeisers tests showing 40-50% contamination. Though Monsanto fought to have the tests conducted by Schmeisers people deemed inadmissible, the court allowed both sides to present their findings. The court determined that the amount of GM contamination in Schmeisers fields was too high to have been by chance. The court declared that in 1998 Mr.

Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which seed he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that Schmeiser was guilty of patent infringement. The ruling required delivery up of any canola remaining from Schmeisers 1998 crop; profits of $105,000.00 for Monsanto US; damages of $15,450.00 for Monsanto Canada; and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. 2001: J.E.M. Agricultural Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred In this U.S. Supreme Court decision, the court officially ruled that utility patents were unconditionally valid for coverage of plants, and that no statue of the PPA or PVPA prevented this. The case was brought to court when Pioneer Hi-Bred sued J.E.M over patent infringement for selling some of its patented seeds. J.E.M. countered that the patents were invalid, as the Supreme Court had not granted the right to utility patents to plants. The Supreme Court, citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, sided with Pioneer Hi-Bred, leaving GM seed companies holding patents to sleep soundly at night. 2002: Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Federal Court of Appeals) Schmeiser appealed his loss in the Canadian Federal Court on the grounds that if he did not use Roundup on the Roundup Ready canola, he could not have been infringing on Monsantos patent. Since the first way a farmer can detect Roundup Ready plants on his property is through spraying Roundup, Schmeiser could not have known that his fields were contaminated when he did not use Roundup in his 1998 crop. Secondly, he argued that since the patent was for the Roundup Ready component of the canola, and he did not take advantage of that aspect, he was not in violation of patent laws. Finally, he appealed the award of excessive damages to Monsanto, as he realized no financial benefit, and therefore no profit, from the fact that his 1998 crop included glyphosate-resistant canola. He did not sell his 1998 crop to another farmer to be used as glyphosate-resistant canola seed, but sold it to a commercial crushing plant to whom the presence of the Monsanto gene represented no value. The appeal was rejected by the Federal Court, as was Monsantos crossappeal, and the original ruling of the Federal Court case was upheld. 2004: Mendocino County, California, bans GMO crop propagation Over 57 percent of voters in the northern California county of Mendocino cast ballots in favor of Measure H. The county ordinance banned the propagation and growth of any GMO crops, defined as crops whos native intrinsic DNA has been intentionally altered or amended with non species specific DNA and excluding hybrid crops created through conventional methods. Though a tremendous amount of money was spent by the biotech industry to defeat the measure, it passed in what

turned out to be the most voted on measure in Mendocino County history. To this day, Mendocino County is still the only area in the United States to have a full ban on growing GMO plants. 2004: Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court) When the case finally reached the Canadian Supreme Court, the court declared that the case would not cover the ethical problems behind accidental crop pollination, but only whether Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent, and if so, what remedies Monsanto may claim. The court determined that Monsanto can license the sale of its seeds but that, saving, planting, or selling seed from glyphosate-resistant plants does not constitute an infringing use, as There is no claim for a "glyphosate-resistant" plant and all its offspring. In a 5-4 ruling, they determined that plants could be patented and that Schmeiser was in violation of Monsantos monopoly on that particular canola strain. Though the Supreme Court effectively ruled against Schmeiser, it was a partial victory for the farmer, as he was dismissed from paying damages and Monsantos legal fees. 2007: Ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa In late 2006, the Center for Food Safety filed a federal lawsuit to stop the sale and planting of Monsantos Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds, citing the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement before the product went on the market. In 2007, the federal court ruled in favor of the Center for Food Safety and a USDA supplemental administrative order was issued, prohibiting both the sale and growing of Monsantos alfalfa strain. The case made its way through several levels of federal courts before being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 27, 2010. In June 2010, the court ruled 7-1 and reversed the lower courts initial ban on the GE alfalfa. However, the alfalfa still must go through a second USDA approvals process and an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared before being allowed back on the market. Roundup Ready alfalfa is anticipated to be ready for sale once again in early to mid 2011.

2009: Second World Seed Conference Hosted at the UNs FAO headquarters in Rome, the Second World Seed Conference aimed to address issues of food security and the role of new plant varieties in meeting the demands of a changing world (ISTA). Unfortunately for small farmers and those using traditional agroecological practices, the conference concluded that intellectual property protection is crucial for a sustainable contribution of plant breeding and seed supply, and that governments must continue to supply high-quality seed to their citizens (ISTA). Additionally, the conference recommended that any country interested in increasing the availability of these new and high-quality seed to farmers must join multinational organizations such as UPOV, ISTA (International Seed Testing Association), and ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). No discussion or conclusions were made on protecting farmers rights or personal seed saving. 2010: Food Safety Modernization Act Passed on November 29th, 2010, this food safety bill puts the FDA under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. Among its many controversial elements are the requirement that all dairy cows involved in interstate commerce be treated with rBGH, requires inspection of seed-cleaning machines, and increased general inspections of facilities. While that last one might not seem particularly controversial, the act only mandates that facilities be inspected once every five yearsnot the potential for increased safety some were hoping for. These regulations are designed for the largest industrial-scale food producers, and although small-time producers (those making less than $500,000 per year) are exempt, it leaves many medium-sized farms at risk. Fees, fines, and taxes for farmers will increase, with the larger firms more likely to be able to absorb the costs. What this will eventually mean for family farmers and seed-savers is still up for debatewith increased FDA powers, it is a frightening prospect for some. For the time being though, the bill is stalled in the House and may not be implemented.

2014: Monsantos patent on Roundup Ready soybeans and canola set to expirewhat does the future hold for seed savers?

What is Monsanto doing?

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) in 2007 reported 112 lawsuits have been filed by Monsanto against farmers for violating its patented genetically engineered seeds. The lawsuits involve 372 farmers and 49 small farm businesses. Of those lawsuits, 57 ended with recorded monetary damages awarded to Monsanto while 24 ended with confidential settlements in favor of Monsanto. Monsanto has been awarded over $21 million in lawsuits against farmers. One alarming figure however is the amount of out-of-court settlements.

Monsanto pro-farmer ad campaign

Monsanto has a huge advertizing campaign in which it feigns support for family farmers (see photo and link to the left here). But the reality is somewhat different. According to a 2006 figures from court records, Mondanto filed between 2,391 to 4,531 complaints alleging farmers engaged in patent infringements. The CFS estimates that farmers at that point has paid between $85 to $160 million to Monsanto in-out-of-court settlements. Since the 1980 landmark law that permits seeds to be patented, Monsanto owns over 400 plant technology patents. State Preemption State legislatures throughout the country are trying to prevent local government control of genetically-modified (GM) plant and seeds by instituting preemption laws. Many local communities have passed resolutions seeking to control the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their jurisdiction.

Local communities have become more knowledgeable about the risks of GMO consumption. Many state legislatures have an interest in the large-scale agricultural industry and are often supported by large agribusiness interests. The consequences of preemption are undermining local control and democracy and makes up for what higher levels of government doesnt such as public health, safety, and welfare. Nebraska for example has passed a bill that overrides city and county regulations of seed or fertilizer. There are 18 other states that have passed preemption seed laws. Suing to dominate: Monsantos legal strategies

Credit: Professor Phil Howard, Michigan State University.

Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms A 7-1 ruling in favor of Monsanto to reverse an injunction prohibiting the sale of pesticide-resistant alfalfa seeds until an environmental impact study is completed by the USDA. Heres a little background to help our readers understand. In 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved Monsantos GM alfalfa seeds without determining the environmental impact. This meant that Monsanto could start selling the new seeds to farmers before a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and without full USDA oversight.

Monsanto's links to other biotech giants. Credit: Phil Howard.

In 2006, environmentalists and farmers sued the USDA for not conducting a full review and in 2007 a federal judge issued an injunction on banning the sale of the seeds. The Supreme Court ruled to remove the injunction but the ban is still in place until an EIS is completed. The contentious battle is over when the USDA will likely approve the use of Monsantos GM seeds which could result in further litigation. As of right now, the product is pending until there is USDA approval. The 2005 Anti-Trust Hearing The Justice Department and Department of Agriculture is holding a series of discussions about the future of American agriculture. One of the issues concerns the lack of competition of agricultural seed companies such as Monsanto. Monsanto owns 60 percent of the corn seed market, 62 percent of soybean market, 95% of transgenic cotton seed market, and is rapidly consolidating control of the vegetable, sugar beet, and wheat markets. In 2005 Monsanto bought Seminis, which was at the time the worlds largest seed company, for $1.4 billion. Monsanto has purchased many seed companies over the years. Farmers are losing out as prices for agricultural products in the marketplace have remained the same relatively while the costs of production have grown dramatically. Prices for seeds and fertilizers are increasing as a consequence of the narrowing range of large corporations controlling these vital agricultural inputs.

One of the issues affecting the price hikes is the nature of seed licensing. Farmers complain that seed companies are treating them unfairly because of patent rights; seed saving and plant breeding are banned under the intellectual property rights (IPR) regime. The federal government is investigating whether companies like Monsanto have grown too powerful and whether more regulation is needed. Monsanto v. Scruggs Monsanto sued Mitchell Scruggs for patent infringement on its Roundup Ready cotton and soybean seeds because the farmer used the seeds again, without a new contract or seed purchase. A technology agreement must be signed by the farmer in order to grow the patented seeds from a seed dealer. Once an agreement is signed, it restricts the farmer from reusing seed stock for more than one season. Scruggs bought the seeds in an unrestricted sale and re-used them again. However he never did sign a licensing agreement and bought the seeds in an unrestricted sale which he declares the infringement invalid. The court ruled that there was no unrestricted sale because the seeds are still patented by Monsanto. The court also ruled that the farmer does not have the right to replicate Monsantos technology in future use. Monsanto interlocks with political and corporate elites Monsanto has strong ties with a growing number of elected officials and other finance, business, political, and judicial elites. Here is a list of the Monsantis [sic]: Clarence Thomas. Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas previously a Monsanto lawyer 1976-1979. Tom Vilsack. Current USDA Secretary. Vilsack is a strong supporter of Biotechnology and was named Person of the Year by Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), a lobby group that represents corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. Michael R. Taylor. Taylor is involved with setting U.S. policy onagricultural assistance in Africa. In collusion with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, Taylor is once again the go-between man for Monsanto and the U.S. government, this time with the goal to open up African markets for geneticallymodified (GM) seed and agrochemicals. Taylor is currently a senior adviser to FDA Secretary; former VP of Monsanto for Public Policy; former USDA Food Safety and

Inspection Service; former FDA Deputy Commissioner; former attorney for Monsanto; first started by working as a staff attorney for FDA. John Ashcroft. Former Attorney General under the administration of George W. Bush. Received political contributions from Monsanto for a Senate campaign ($10,000). Donald Rumsfeld. Former Secretary of Defense under the administration of George W. Bush. Among many corporate positions, he served as a President of Searle Pharmaceuticals, which is now owned by Monsanto. Ann Veneman. Former USDA Secretary under the administration of George W. Bush. Serves on the Board of Directors of Calgene Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Monsanto. Tommy Thomson. Former Wisconsin Governor and Former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. A big GM supporter who accepted political contributions ($50,000) from Monsanto and other biotechnology firms. Larry Combest. Former U.S. Representative from Texas who served as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Is a strong supporter of GM and accepted political contributions from Monsanto ($2,000). Linda Fisher. Former Deputy Administrator of the EPA. Is a former Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at Monsanto Corporation; before that she worked for the EPA in various positions and also served on the USDA advisory committee on transgenic foods. Mitch Daniels. Governor of Indiana and former Director of Office of Management and Budget. Former Vice President of Eli Lilly, which worked with Monsanto to develop a genetically-engineered human growth hormone.

The Resistance
Heirloom Seed Companies and Seed Saving and Exchange Networks in the U.S. The power of Monsanto can appear daunting at times, especially its seemingly bottomless capacity to launch rapacious legal attacks on farmers and its ability to use lobbyists and insiders to promote its own special interests inside the Washington D.C. beltway.

But this seemingly invincible profit-machine is revealing several critical weaknesses that social movements can focus on as they continue to resist this gargantuan global corporation and the destructive social ecological ethos it embodies. The first weakness is revealed by nature itself, that is by the natural proclivity of plants and other organisms to evolve and mutate as they adapt to changing ecological conditions. Already, many farmers, who were sold the transgenic bill of goods as a permanent panacea for the failing productivity curves of the so-called Green Revolution, are finding out the hard way that biotechnologies present the exact same types of limits and contradictions posed by the earlier generations of agro-industrial weed and pest controls. As there was a pesticide treadmill, so too there appears to be a transgenics treadmill.

Lambs Quarters (a.k.a. Pigweed) in a transgenic corn field. Photo courtesy of Pawpaw67 via Flickr

This has become apparent with the case of Monsanto's transgenic corn, soy, and cotton crops - especially those that are designed to be resistant to damage from the application of excessive quanitities of the herbicide (Roundup). This is what happens: As weeds gain resistance, the farmers are instructed to increase the amount of herbicide applied, ad nauseum - hence the metaphor of the treadmill. As early as 2002, there were already indications that weeds would mutate and develop resistance to the ever-increasing amount of herbicides recommended by Monsanto's weed control protocols. At that time, the Organic Consumers of America reported that:
The US is being hit by Roundup Ready resistant weeds and an independent market research study, which has been discreetly circulating and has been

seen by GM WATCH, says Roundup Ready resistance is set to hit the economic value of farmland wiping around 17% off US land rentals. What's more, 46% of the farm managers surveyed in the study said weed resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, is now their top weed-resistance concern. The report warns, "Suddenly, glyphosateresistant weeds have become more than an in-season production and profitability issue. They can also affect the long-term value of farmland". It also says, "These survey findings should make both farm managers and landowners take notice" because "The economic consequences are significant" and can represent for landowners "a major loss of cash flow.

A 2011 study, as reported by Eva Sirinathsinghji, a respected weed scientist, confirms that resistance by "lowly" lambs quarters is undermining Monsanto's strategy of combining transgenic Roundup-Ready crops with the use of its flagship herbicide. The report notes that:
Monsanto is surrendering to glyphosate resistant weeds, according to a new briefing by UK based GM freeze. They are spreading at exponential rates in US farms and are increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa. While Monsanto grandly claims that its GM technologies help the environment by reducing pesticide use, resistant weeds springing up across the world paints a different picture.

The second challenge facing Monsanto is human nature, or if I may, the nature of social movements. Critical to these movements is a hunger and thirst for freedom; for liberty from corporate domination; for the autonomy of citizens and communities from a state of exception that banks on the collusion of corrupt states and avarice-driven corporations.

The search for food autonomy is dependent on the struggle to protect seeds and the traditions of seed-saving, seed-sharing, and plant-breeding that have been the creative commons driving agroecological and ethnobotanical innovation since the beginning of agriculture. Therefore, in closing we present a select listing of some of the companies and organizations involved in promoting the protection and sharing of this most ancient of all traditions: Heirloom seed saving. Fedco. Clinton, ME Fedco is a company that provides seeds and tubers especially adapted to the Northeast Climate. This company is organized as a cooperative where consumers own 60% of the company, and workers own the other 40%. Companies such as these are an important resource for seed savers as they produce regional heirloom seeds that are locally relevant. www.fedcoseeds.com Garden State Heirloom Seed Society. Delaware, NJ GSHSS is an organization of farmers, gardeners and historians dedicated to promoting and preserving open pollinated heirloom seeds. This organization provides farmers and gardeners with heirloom seeds that are adapted to, and reflect the history of the area. www.historyyoucaneat.org Native Seeds SEARCH. Tuscon, AZ The Southwestern Endangered Aridland Resource Clearinghouse is committed to preserving the genetic diversity of aridland heirloom crops as well as the cultural agricultural knowledge of the native people of the Southwest. In addition to documenting and conserving the seeds of heirloom crops and their wild relatives, SEARCH also distributes these seeds. www.nativeseeds.org Primal Seeds. Primal Seeds is a network which is dedicated to actively protecting biodiversity and creating local food security. Originally founded as a response to industrial biopiracy and the corporate control of seeds, this organization conceptualizes its self to be a tool for informing and inspiring people to empower individuals to save seed and swap heritage, open-pollinated, rare and locally relevant seeds. Seed Savers Exchange. Decorah, IA Founded in 1975 by Diane Ott Whealy and Kent Whealy, National Farmers Union preserves and shares heirloom and open pollinated seeds while educating people around them about the value of genetic and cultural diversity. Their interest in seed saving started when their grandfather gave them seeds brought to the United States from Bavaria by his parents in 1870. Today they preserve and distribute thousands of heirloom varieties, most of which have been brought to the US from

members whose ancestors who emigrated from Europe, the Middle East and Asia. www.seedsavers.org Territorial Seed Company. London Springs, OR This seed company and organic research farm preserves and distributes seeds and plants which are specifically adapted to the growing conditions of the Pacific Northwest. Founder Steve Solomon has also written a book Growing Vegetables West of the Cascade in order to provide gardeners and seed savers valuable information about how to compost, grow, transplant and manage pests in the often tricky and unpredictable climate of the Pacific Northwest. www.territorialseed.com Victory Seeds. Molalla, OR This organization is small and family owned. They work to preserve heritage seeds as well as horticultural history. They document, grown and distribute heirloom and rare, open pollinated seeds to home gardeners in order to protect genetic diversity and cultural heritage. They see their efforts as an important effort to oppose the corporate control of agriculture and currently maintain a seed bank as well as educating the public on the importance of landrace crops and genetic diversity. www.victoryseeds.com

Bibliography Biosafety Clearing-House. (June 28, 2010). About the protocol. Retrieved from http://bch.cbd.int/protocol Center for Food Safety. (2005). Monsanto vs. U.S. farmers. Retrieved from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ CFS. (2007). Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers. Center for Food Safety . Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ Cohen, Robert. (2001, January 21). Monsanto and g.w. bush administration: who will own the store? Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/ Crouch, M. L. (1998). How the terminator (gene) terminates: an explanation for the non-scientists of a remarkable patent for killing second generation seeds of crop plants. Retrieved from http://www.victoryseeds.com Delta and Pine Land Co. (1998). U.S. Patent No. 5,723,765. Retrieved from USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010, S. 510, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010). Freeman, E. (2008, September 30). Why does Monsanto patent seeds? Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/ Froeb, Ian. (2010, June 22). Monsanto v. Geertson seed farms: the Supreme Court rules, everyone claims victory. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/gutcheck/ Geertson Seed Farms, Inc et al. v. Mike Johanns et al. 3:06-cv-01075-CRB (N.D. California 2007). Hamilton, Jill, & Cummins, Ronnie. (2008, December 17). Ag secretary tom vilsack: too much monsanto in the mix?. Retrieved from http://www.opednews.com/ Hicks, Nancy. (2009, May 6). Bill would stop counties from banning genetically engineered crops. Lincoln Journal Star International Seed Testing Association. (2010). Conference aim. Retrieved from http://www.worldseedconference.org/

International Seed Testing Association. (2010). Conference conclusions. Retrieved from http://www.worldseedconference.org/ J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001). Juan, A., Huillard-Kann, C., Fortin, Y., Medawar, C., (Producers), & Robin M. (Director). (2008). The World According to Monsanto [Motion Picture]. France: Image et Compagnie. Kaplan, Initials. (2006). Case Summaries. Retrieved from http://www.rkmc.com/ Koons, Jennifer. (2010, June 21). Supreme Court lifts ban on planting gm alfalfa. New York Times Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser, FCA 309 (2002). Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser, SCC 34 (2004). Monsanto Canada, Inc. and Monsanto Co. v. Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd, FCT 256 (2001). Monsanto Company. (n.d.). Roundup ready alfalfa Supreme Court case. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/ Mulkern, Anne. (2004, May 23). The revolving door: US government workers & university researchers, go biotech. . . . . . . and back again. A question of ethics . Retrieved from http://www.mindfully.org/GE/ Novotny, Eva. (2010, July 4). U.S. farmers oppose Big Ag in anti-trust hearing. Retrieved from http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ OpenHarvest, . (2009, May 19). Changes made to Nebraska. Retrieved from http://www.openharvest.coop/ Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, 7 U.S.C. 2483. Pollack, A. (2010, August 6). Roadside invader: Engineered canola. New York Times Green Blog. Retrieved from: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/ Then, Christoph. (2005, April). Companies bought by Monsanto. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.de/

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1994). The new tomato: An inside view. NBIAP News Report. Retrieved from: http://www.accessexcellence.org/ United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2005). Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Washington, D.C.: USPTO. UPOV. (October 22, 2009). International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants: What it is, what is does. Retrieved from http://www.upov.int/ UPOV. (1991). 1991 Act of UPOV Convention. Retrieved from http://www.upov.int/ Walsh-Dilley, M. (2009). Localizing control: Mendocino County and the ban on GMOs. Agriculture and Human Values, 26, 95-105. Western Farm Press. (2010, December 6). Food safety bill still caught on constitutional snag. Retrieved from: http://westernfarmpress.com/