Taking into account the historic transitions and progressions in agricultural science, this article examines the emergence of the phenomenon of agricultural biotechnology. It identifies pivotal sites of tension between agricultural biotechnology and alternative approaches to agriculture. The article identifies two distinct sources of contemporary social tension around agricultural science. First, it identifies the epistemological fault line and examines how the latter is promoted by intellectual property. Second, it spotlights the gene-wandering syndrome—a byproduct of genetic modification—and evaluates its impact on the escalating tension in our agricultural communities. Drawing from recent court decisions in Canada, the article recognizes the present urgency for a better jurisprudence and practical regulatory policy on aspects of agricultural biotechnology to mediate current tensions in those communities. It argues that judicial and policy response must be predicated on recognition of agro-epistemic pluralism and an understanding of broader socioeconomic impact of agro-biotechnology on alternative forms of agriculture.
Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group meeting on the potential impacts of genetic use restriction technologies on smallholder farmers, indigenous and local communities and farmers' rights (2006). Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?wg=TEGURT-01
2.
Agricultural Operations Act, SS. 1995, c.A-12.
3.
Aoki, K.
(2003).
Weeds, seeds and deeds: Recent skirmishes in the seed wars. Cardozo Journal ofInternational and Comparative Law, 11,
247-331
.
4.
Arewa, O.B.
(2006).
TRIPs and traditional knowledge: Local communities, local knowledge and global intellectual property framework. Marquette Intellectual PropertyLaw Review, 16,
155-180
.
Bains, W.
(2003). Biotechnology: From a to z.
New York: Oxford University Press
.
7.
Battiste, M.
, &
Henderson, J.
(2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge: A global challenge .
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
, Canada:
Purich
.
8.
Brett, N.
(2004). Private life: Biotechnology and public-private divide in new perspectives on public private divide (Law Commissions of Canada, Ed.).
Vancouver
, British Columbia, Canada:
UBC Press
.
9.
Brookfield, H.
, &
Padoch, C.
(1994).
Appreciating agrodiversity: A look at the dynamism and diversity of indigenous farming practices
. Environment , 36,
6-45
.
10.
Cambridge Water v. Eastern Country Leather, [1994] 2 AC 264.
11.
Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.
( 2002).
Patenting of higher life forms and related issuesRetrieved October7, 2006, from http://www.cbac-cccb.ca/epic/internet/incbac-cccb.nsf/en/ah00188e.html
12.
Class Action Act, SS 2001 c. C-12.01.
13.
Conway, G.
(1997). Doubly green revolution: Food for all in the 21st century.
New York: Penguin Books
.
14.
Coombe, R.J.
(2001).
The recognition of indigenous peoples' and community traditional knowledge in international law. St. ThomasLaw Review, 14,
275-313
.
15.
DeBeer, J.
(2005).
Reconciling property rights in plants
. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8,
5-31
.
16.
Drahos, P.
, &
Braithwaite, J.
(2004).
Hegemony based on knowledge: The role of intellectual property
. Law in Context, 21,
204-223
.
17.
Ellen, R.
,
Harris, H.
, &
Parkes, P.
(Eds.). (2000). Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: Critical anthropological perspectives.
Amsterdam
, the Netherlands:
Harwood Academic Publishers
.
18.
Ellis, F.
(1992). Agricultural policies in developing countries .
New York: Cambridge University Press
.
19.
Environmental Management and Protection Act, SS 1983-4, c.E-102.
20.
Environmental Management and Protection Act, SS 2002, c.E-1021.
21.
European Council.
(1998). Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, July 6, 1998 on the Legal Protection of Biological Inventions .
22.
European Council.
(1999). Regulation (EC) No 1804/99 (June 19, 1999)—Supplement to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2029/91 (June 24, 1991) on Organic Production of Agricultural Products .
23.
Evenson, R. E.
,
Santaniello, V.
, &
Zilberman, D.
(Eds.). (2002). Economic and social issues in agriculture biotechnology .
New York: Cabi
.
24.
Fowler, C.
, &
Mooney, P.
(1990). Shattering: Food, politics and the loss of genetic diversity.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press
.
25.
Fulton, M.
,
Furtan, H.
,
Gosnell, D.
,
Gray, R.
,
Hobbs, J.
,
Holzman, J.
, et al. (2001, March).
Transforming agriculture: The benefits and costs of genetically modified crops
. Paper prepared for Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee on Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://cbac-cccb.ca/epic/internet/incbac-cccb.nsf/en/ah00388e.html
26.
Gilpin, A.
(1996). Dictionary of environment and sustainable development .
Chichester
, UK:
John Wiley & Sons
.
27.
Glenn, J.M.
(2004).
Footloose: Civil responsibility for GMO gene wandering in Canada
. Washburn Law Journal, 43,
547-573
.
28.
Gonzalez, C.G.
(2004).
Trade liberalization, food security, and the environment: The neoliberal threat to sustainable rural development
. Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Legal Problems, 14,
419-498
.
29.
Haight, C.F.
(1997).
Protecting folklore of indigenous peoples: Is intellectual property the answer?Connecticut Law Review, 30,
1-57
.
30.
Hoffman and ors. v. Monsanto Canada Inc & Bayer CropScience Inc., 2005 SKQB 225, (2005); 264 SASK R. 1.
31.
Howarth, D.
(2004).
Civil liability for GM farming: GM crops and the existing law (Part 2)
. Environmental Liability, 5,
185-195
.
32.
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. ( 2001). Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.fao.org/AG/cgrfa/itpgr.htm#text
33.
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. (1991). Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.upov.int/en/publications/conventions/1991/msword/act1991.doc
34.
Kershen, D.L.
(2004).
Of straying crops and patent rights
. Washburn Law Journal, 43,
575-610
.
35.
King, R.C.
, &
Stansfield, W.D.
(1990). A dictionary of genetics (4th ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press
.
36.
Kloppenberg, J., Jr.
(1998). First the seed—The political economy of plant biotechnology.
New York: Cambridge University Press
.
37.
Krimsky, S.
, &
Wrubel, R.
(1996). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment .
Urbana: University of Illinois Press
.
38.
Kuhnlein, H.V.
, &
Turner, N.J.
(1991). Traditional plant foods and Canadian indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany and use.
Philadelphia: Gordon and Breach
.
39.
Lee, C. C.
(Ed.). (1996). The dictionary of environmental legal terms.
New York: McGraw-Hill
.
40.
Lee, M.
, &
Burrell, R.
(2002).
Liability for the escape of GM seeds: Pursuing the `victim'
? Modern Law Review, 65,
517-537
.
41.
Lessig, L.
(2003).
The creative commons
. Florida Law Review, 55,
763-777
.
42.
Mehta, M.D.
, &
Gair, J.J.
(2001).
Social, political, legal and ethical areas of inquiry in biotechnology and genetic engineering
. Technology in Society, 23,
241-264
.
43.
Mgbeoji, I.
(2001).
Patents and traditional knowledge of uses of plants: Is a communal patent regime part of the solution to the scourge of biopiracy
? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 9,
163-186
.
44.
Mgbeoji, I.
(2005). Global biopiracy.
Vancouver
, British Columbia, Canada:
UBC Press
.
45.
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902.
46.
Oguamanam, C.
(2004).
Localizing intellectual property in the globalization epoch: The integration of indigenous knowledge
. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 11,
135-169
.
47.
Oguamanam, C.
(2005).
Genetic use restriction (or terminator) technologies in agricultural biotechnology: The limits of technological alternatives to intellectual property
. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology , 4,
59-76
.
48.
Oguamanam, C.
(2006). International law and indigenous knowledge: Intellectual property, plant biodiversity and traditional medicine.
Toronto, Ontario
, Canada:
University of Toronto Press
.
49.
Olszynski, M.Z.P.
(2005).
Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada Inc.: Looking for a generous approach to the elephant in the garden
. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 16,
53-78
.
50.
Otsuka, Y.
(2003).
Socioeconomic considerations relevant to sustainable development, use and control of genetically modified foods
. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 14,
294-318
.
51.
Pascalev, A.
(2003).
You are what you eat: Genetically modified foods, integrity and society. Journal ofAgriculture and Environmental Ethics, 16,
583-593
.
52.
Patent Act, R.S.C, 1985, c. P-4.
53.
Phillipson, M.
(2005).
Giving away the farm? The rights and obligations of biotechnology multinationals: Canadian developments
. Kings College Law Journal, 16,
362-372
.
54.
R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment and MAFF, ex parte Watson, [1999] Env LR 310.
55.
Richards v. Lothian, [1913] AC 263.
56.
Rylands v. Fletcher, 1886 LR 1 Exch 265.
57.
Sell, S.K.
(2002).
Post-TRIPS developments: The tension between commercial and social agenda in the context of intellectual property
. Florida Journal of International Law, 14,
193-216
.
58.
Sharma, D.
(2004). The great trade robbery: World hunger and the myth of industrial agriculture in gene traders: Biotechnology and the globalization of hunger (
B. Tokar
, Ed.).
Burlington, VT: Toward Freedom
.
59.
Shiva, V.
(1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge .
Boston: South End Press
.
