Cameron Ishee
December 20, 2012
Pam Baker, English 3
Research Paper #2
December 20, 2012
Pam Baker, English 3
Research Paper #2
World Domination Makes Good Money:
Monsanto’s Quest to Control the World’s Agriculture
Monsanto’s Quest to Control the World’s Agriculture
One morning in 1999, Percy Schmeiser woke up on his farm in Bruno, Canada, not knowing that he was about to change the world. He had been having some legal trouble with the mega-corporation Monsanto. Even at that time, Monsanto controlled much of the food industry, but the disputes over property rights seemed, at least in the beginning, like something that could be resolved easily. But in 1999, the case would go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Monsanto would claim that Schmeiser, whose fields were riddled with a certain popular strain of genetically engineered, pesticide-proof canola, was in violation of their intellectual property rights. Schmeiser would claim that the pollen and seeds had blown over from neighboring fields and passing transport trucks, and that Monsanto was responsible for the contamination of the organic canola strain that he had spent over forty years cultivating. That unique breed, along with dozens, if not hundreds of others over the decades, had become a casualty in the “war for control over seeds” (La Via Campensia qb. Lappé) and biodiversity. But on this quiet morning, the yellow canola swayed in the wind, the legal precedents had not been set, and he knew nothing.
Mega-corporations like Monsanto have a profoundly negative effect on our planet’s biodiversity. Their ever-increasing number of seed patents hamper farmers and the economy, as well as allowing for deliberate extinction. Their methods are unsustainable, uncontained and have become a threat to every level of the environment. Their genetic modifications, while good intentioned, are out of hand. These actions, their actions put our planet’s biodiversity at risk, and cannot be allowed to continue. Changes to consumer behavior, coupled with revised set of laws and regulations, are the best way to preserve our international ecosystems and our future.
Ultimately, Monsanto’s patents were affirmed over Percy Schmeiser’s property rights in the Canadian Supreme Court. The patents of Monsanto and others are becoming a significant problem in the world of agriculture. When an agricultural empire has the right to patent something like a seed, they have the right to the existence of the species itself. This goes far beyond patenting a new, drought-resistant tomato that’s been built in a lab, and can have drastic consequences for everything from biodiversity to the economy: “Monsanto and Syngenta alone have filed patents for dozens of conventional vegetables, including tomatoes, sweet peppers, and melons…[they are] tightening control on how and where certain crops can be planted and even whether certain seed lines are continued—or exterminated” (Lappé). This is a problem that only grows with time. Between 1999 and 2011, over 1,500 patents for plant species were approved in Europe, and the number of those pending grows every day (Lappé). In 2007, six companies controlled 98% of all of the world’s seeds (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). Monsanto, of the six, has the second-most expensive stock, and is arguably the most influential of the group. A 2009 Associated Press investigation discovered that Monsanto was intentionally patenting genes and spreading the seeds containing those genes in a deliberate attempt to control entire species and crops. They allow and encourage other companies to blend their own unique seed strands with Monsanto’s, at a very steep price. In the US, the inquiry found, Monsanto controls 95% of all soybeans 80% of all corn (Leonard). Furthermore, they are using this control and decrease in competition to drive up prices. Over the course of 2009, the price of soybeans and corn rose 26% and 25% respectively (Leonard). Not only is this company impeding on biodiversity by monopolizing entire species, their monopolization has dire consequences for a capitalist economy. The way seed strains are squashed, the way genetically diverse species are narrowed down to single, patented varieties can be seen no better than in Peru, the original birthplace of the potato. It was a country where about 4,000 different varieties once flourished, “each with its own name, flavor, and use, ranging in size from tiny to gigantic and color in the spectrum from indigo-purple to red orange, yellow and white” (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). “Now,” writes Barbara Kingsolver, “even in the regions of Peru least affected by the modern market, only a few dozen potato varieties are grown,” (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). This consolidation, this elimination of literally thousands of diverse lines of genes is not sheer accident, not just natural evolutionary progress. As the AP discovered, it is the result of a deliberate, engineered, profit-driven push by Monsanto towards the monopolization of agriculture. But through it all, Monsanto spokespersons such as Lee Quarles plead the public to "also keep in mind that, as the [intellectual property developer], it is our right to determine who will obtain rights to our technology and for what purpose,” (Quarles qb. Leonard). All of this is completely legal, thanks to national and international patent laws. Monsanto has made seeds, has made entire species into its own protected property, and that absolute power is, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, incredibly harmful to biodiversity.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the species of plants that Monsanto does or does not grow that are problematic for biodiversity. The methods for creating the plants and chemicals they do produce harm not only the crops of others through contamination, such as Percy Schmeiser’s canola crop, but also the wild plants and animals that they come into contact with. The literal overkill of highly toxic pesticides and herbicides such as Monsanto’s trademarked Roundup, the uncontained transportation of seeds that has led to so much heartbreak for the farmers it effects, and the spillover of pollution from Monsanto’s laboratories and factories have done significant damage. The world, particularly America, is dotted with Monsanto’s chemical factories, many of which once produced an industrial coolant called polychlorinated biphenyl, commonly known as PCB. Monsanto’s unchecked pollution from these and other operations has caused disasters, both local and global, that will take generations to repair. One small example is the devastation wreaked on the small town of Anniston, Alabama and the surrounding lands, which in addition to thriving human, animal, and plant communities, was home to a Monsanto PCB factory that sat by the river. The river that flowed through the west side of Anniston received 50,000 pounds of toxic waste a year from that factory, for 40 years, to the point where “fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water” (Grunwald). And yet for decades, despite knowing how bad the situation was far ahead of the federal government’s researchers, Monsanto didn’t inform the public, didn’t attempt to fix the situation, and actually actively worked to cover it up. In 1969, Monsanto created a committee to address the issues, and their memos and meeting notes show damning evidence of the cover-up: “The PCBs are exhibiting a greater degree of toxicity than anticipated,” one report read, “[The toxic pollution] would shut us down” if uncovered by the federal government, said another. To help with the conspiracy, the committee at Monsanto enlisted the help of a local government agency, the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, or AWIC. A memo from Joe Crockett, AWIC’s technical director at the time, advised Monsanto to “Give no statements or publications which would bring the situation to the public's attention” and that the “the full cooperation of the AWIC on a confidential basis can be anticipated” (Grunwald). This pervasive deceit and dishonesty, lasting literally for generations, was only ended when the plant moved to another state, PCBs were banned and the national government moved in to assess the situation. The town of Anniston is now all but deserted (Grunwald). The land was destroyed beyond reasonable repair. Today, in what is left of Anniston, Alabama, PCBs can be found in the soil, the air, the people, and of course in the water. Of the species of plants and animals, especially the aquatic life, almost all are gone or long dead.
In a similar vein, Monsanto’s creation of Genetically Modified Organisms, or “GMOs”, while good intentioned, has gradually become more and more of a problem. GMOs were presented as being the solution to a world where starvation, drought, vitamin deficiency, malnutrition, and other issues kill millions annually. And, while some carefully controlled GMOs and their creators, such as Norman Borlaug and his wheat, have proved downright heroic, literally saving well over a billion lives (“Norman Borlaug: The Father of the Green Revolution”), in the hands of a corporation with questionable morality such as Monsanto, it can quickly become a catastrophe. Though the technology only emerged relatively recently, “pressure from agricultural interests…has led to what some would call an irresponsible rush to market of products” without research being done to really know if they are safe (Kenney). Furthermore, the continuous attempts to make seed strains disease-resistant, in addition to the widespread planting of single varieties and the perpetual adaptation of viruses has the potential to lead to widespread and long term crop failure if a disease mutates to overcome the genetic protection (Kenney). When this is coupled with the tendency of seeds and pollen to spread when uncontained, this “development” could lead to the deaths of even more strands if a vulnerability that was accidentally genetically engineered is transferred. When the Irish depended on one strain of potato, the result was famine and death of historical proportions. Now America, with its dependence on single strains of corn and soybeans, is at risk of similar catastrophes (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). Also, in the end, much of the GMOs are used as livestock feed, not to solve world hunger. The USA, Argentina, and Brazil, for example, grow 77% of all GMOs, “nearly all destined for livestock” (Lappé). While the initial aims might be noble, the use of GMOs is detrimental to, among many other things, biodiversity.
All of this—the patenting, the pollution, and the GMOs—all adds up to a massive problem that must be addressed, and there seem to be several ways to do this. One route lies in changes to the legal system, at the national and international levels. On national levels, many countries have court cases that need to be revised or reversed completely through new trials to protect biodiversity. For example, one of the main reasons the Supreme Court of Canada cited for their decision against Schmeiser is that, in similar situations, the patenting of “a plasmid and a somatic cell culture” was allowed, and that the instance of patenting genes and cells was “somewhat analogous” and therefore legal (Monsanto Canada Inc. V. Schmeiser). With all due respect to the Canadian Supreme Court, “somewhat analogous,” in the context of the massive loss of our plant’s biodiversity, cannot be grounds for such a decision, even in the face of intellectual property rights. The Court was looking for precedents to work off which is completely understandable, but the consequences of their “somewhat analogous” can be rightly called “somewhat disastrous.” Monsanto went on to sue many other farmers whose crops had been contaminated while making no attempt to curtail the spread of seeds and pollen that causes the problems in the first place, effectively making it impossible for organic canola to be grown in the country. Foreign powers, most notably Australia, have banned the importation of Canadian canola products because of this (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). Other countries have similar cases that could be changed. In the United States, 1980’s Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which allowed corporations to patent entire seeds, could be repealed (Lappé). There are laws to be added, as well. Prop 37, a ballot referendum recently defeated in California, would have required companies to disclose what GMOs were in their food. There are existing national laws and international treaties, too, which ought to be amended. For example, the somewhat misnamed Plant Variety Protection Act in America, the Plant Varieties Act in India, and the corresponding treaty of the United Nations, have been found by numerous experts to be in direct conflict with those nations’ other laws and the UN’s other treaty regarding the biodiversity (Kothari). If the Variety laws and treaty can be amended to allow for the various conflicting provisions in the biodiversity laws and treaty, then they can still do their jobs protecting patent rights without being damaging to the environment.
Similarly, most people can, in their everyday lives, make small changes in their personal behavior to help shift the broader state of things while preserving their lifestyles. Shopping while informed is a large part of this. In general, it is healthier to know what it is one is eating than to simply buy things that look tasty. Support of local farmers through farmer’s markets, collectives, and other means strengthen the businesses of people who are trying to grow independent strains and use different farming methods. As the saying goes, “Think globally, act locally.” One can help end the large, overarching problems through the legislative and judicial systems, and one can use one’s own personal power as a consumer to support positive influences to biodiversity, or deny support to negative factors like Monsanto.
While the losses to biodiversity are still a serious problem, hope is far from gone. Actions can still be taken, on both local and global levels, to stem the losses and to reverse the trend. While the patenting of seeds and genes, the pollution and contamination caused by the production of new chemicals, and the uncontrolled genetic modification of organisms is harmful and will have worse consequences than have been shown already, it is not too late to preserve our planet’s biodiversity. Despite Monsanto’s best efforts, we and our planet can and will overcome these hurdles. We can still stand up, speak out, and change things. There’s still time to hurry on down to the farmer’s market, buy some local chives, organic apples, and homemade muffins. There’s still time to support the Percy Schmiesers of the world.
Works Cited
Grunwald, Michael "Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution: PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told." Washington Post 1 Jan. 2002: A01+. Washington Post. 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.
Kenney, Ian. ""What Are the Disadvantages of a GMO?"" Livestrong: The Limitless Potential of You. The Livestrong Foundation, 8 Aug. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Kingsolver, Barbara, Camille Kingsolver, and Steven L. Hopp. Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. Print.
Kothari, Ashish. "Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity: Are India's Proposed Biodiversity Act and Plant Varieties Act Compatible." Www.grain.org. N.p., 22 Jan. 1998. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Lappé, Anna. "The Battle For Biodiversity: Monsanto and Farmers Clash." The Atlantic 28 Mar. 2011: n. pag. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
Leonard, Christopher. "Monsanto Squeezes Out Seed Business Competition, AP Investigation Finds." Huffington Post. N.p., 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2012
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmieser. Supreme Court of Canada. 21 May 2004. Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. Lexum Site, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
“Norman Borlaug: The Father of the Green Revolution”. Achievements.org. 13 Sep. 2009. 6 Dec. 2012.
Strachan, Janice M. "Plant Variety Protection: An Alternative to Patents." Probe 2.2 (1992): n. pag. United States Department of Agriculture: National Agriculture Library. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Mega-corporations like Monsanto have a profoundly negative effect on our planet’s biodiversity. Their ever-increasing number of seed patents hamper farmers and the economy, as well as allowing for deliberate extinction. Their methods are unsustainable, uncontained and have become a threat to every level of the environment. Their genetic modifications, while good intentioned, are out of hand. These actions, their actions put our planet’s biodiversity at risk, and cannot be allowed to continue. Changes to consumer behavior, coupled with revised set of laws and regulations, are the best way to preserve our international ecosystems and our future.
Ultimately, Monsanto’s patents were affirmed over Percy Schmeiser’s property rights in the Canadian Supreme Court. The patents of Monsanto and others are becoming a significant problem in the world of agriculture. When an agricultural empire has the right to patent something like a seed, they have the right to the existence of the species itself. This goes far beyond patenting a new, drought-resistant tomato that’s been built in a lab, and can have drastic consequences for everything from biodiversity to the economy: “Monsanto and Syngenta alone have filed patents for dozens of conventional vegetables, including tomatoes, sweet peppers, and melons…[they are] tightening control on how and where certain crops can be planted and even whether certain seed lines are continued—or exterminated” (Lappé). This is a problem that only grows with time. Between 1999 and 2011, over 1,500 patents for plant species were approved in Europe, and the number of those pending grows every day (Lappé). In 2007, six companies controlled 98% of all of the world’s seeds (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). Monsanto, of the six, has the second-most expensive stock, and is arguably the most influential of the group. A 2009 Associated Press investigation discovered that Monsanto was intentionally patenting genes and spreading the seeds containing those genes in a deliberate attempt to control entire species and crops. They allow and encourage other companies to blend their own unique seed strands with Monsanto’s, at a very steep price. In the US, the inquiry found, Monsanto controls 95% of all soybeans 80% of all corn (Leonard). Furthermore, they are using this control and decrease in competition to drive up prices. Over the course of 2009, the price of soybeans and corn rose 26% and 25% respectively (Leonard). Not only is this company impeding on biodiversity by monopolizing entire species, their monopolization has dire consequences for a capitalist economy. The way seed strains are squashed, the way genetically diverse species are narrowed down to single, patented varieties can be seen no better than in Peru, the original birthplace of the potato. It was a country where about 4,000 different varieties once flourished, “each with its own name, flavor, and use, ranging in size from tiny to gigantic and color in the spectrum from indigo-purple to red orange, yellow and white” (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). “Now,” writes Barbara Kingsolver, “even in the regions of Peru least affected by the modern market, only a few dozen potato varieties are grown,” (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). This consolidation, this elimination of literally thousands of diverse lines of genes is not sheer accident, not just natural evolutionary progress. As the AP discovered, it is the result of a deliberate, engineered, profit-driven push by Monsanto towards the monopolization of agriculture. But through it all, Monsanto spokespersons such as Lee Quarles plead the public to "also keep in mind that, as the [intellectual property developer], it is our right to determine who will obtain rights to our technology and for what purpose,” (Quarles qb. Leonard). All of this is completely legal, thanks to national and international patent laws. Monsanto has made seeds, has made entire species into its own protected property, and that absolute power is, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, incredibly harmful to biodiversity.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the species of plants that Monsanto does or does not grow that are problematic for biodiversity. The methods for creating the plants and chemicals they do produce harm not only the crops of others through contamination, such as Percy Schmeiser’s canola crop, but also the wild plants and animals that they come into contact with. The literal overkill of highly toxic pesticides and herbicides such as Monsanto’s trademarked Roundup, the uncontained transportation of seeds that has led to so much heartbreak for the farmers it effects, and the spillover of pollution from Monsanto’s laboratories and factories have done significant damage. The world, particularly America, is dotted with Monsanto’s chemical factories, many of which once produced an industrial coolant called polychlorinated biphenyl, commonly known as PCB. Monsanto’s unchecked pollution from these and other operations has caused disasters, both local and global, that will take generations to repair. One small example is the devastation wreaked on the small town of Anniston, Alabama and the surrounding lands, which in addition to thriving human, animal, and plant communities, was home to a Monsanto PCB factory that sat by the river. The river that flowed through the west side of Anniston received 50,000 pounds of toxic waste a year from that factory, for 40 years, to the point where “fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water” (Grunwald). And yet for decades, despite knowing how bad the situation was far ahead of the federal government’s researchers, Monsanto didn’t inform the public, didn’t attempt to fix the situation, and actually actively worked to cover it up. In 1969, Monsanto created a committee to address the issues, and their memos and meeting notes show damning evidence of the cover-up: “The PCBs are exhibiting a greater degree of toxicity than anticipated,” one report read, “[The toxic pollution] would shut us down” if uncovered by the federal government, said another. To help with the conspiracy, the committee at Monsanto enlisted the help of a local government agency, the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, or AWIC. A memo from Joe Crockett, AWIC’s technical director at the time, advised Monsanto to “Give no statements or publications which would bring the situation to the public's attention” and that the “the full cooperation of the AWIC on a confidential basis can be anticipated” (Grunwald). This pervasive deceit and dishonesty, lasting literally for generations, was only ended when the plant moved to another state, PCBs were banned and the national government moved in to assess the situation. The town of Anniston is now all but deserted (Grunwald). The land was destroyed beyond reasonable repair. Today, in what is left of Anniston, Alabama, PCBs can be found in the soil, the air, the people, and of course in the water. Of the species of plants and animals, especially the aquatic life, almost all are gone or long dead.
In a similar vein, Monsanto’s creation of Genetically Modified Organisms, or “GMOs”, while good intentioned, has gradually become more and more of a problem. GMOs were presented as being the solution to a world where starvation, drought, vitamin deficiency, malnutrition, and other issues kill millions annually. And, while some carefully controlled GMOs and their creators, such as Norman Borlaug and his wheat, have proved downright heroic, literally saving well over a billion lives (“Norman Borlaug: The Father of the Green Revolution”), in the hands of a corporation with questionable morality such as Monsanto, it can quickly become a catastrophe. Though the technology only emerged relatively recently, “pressure from agricultural interests…has led to what some would call an irresponsible rush to market of products” without research being done to really know if they are safe (Kenney). Furthermore, the continuous attempts to make seed strains disease-resistant, in addition to the widespread planting of single varieties and the perpetual adaptation of viruses has the potential to lead to widespread and long term crop failure if a disease mutates to overcome the genetic protection (Kenney). When this is coupled with the tendency of seeds and pollen to spread when uncontained, this “development” could lead to the deaths of even more strands if a vulnerability that was accidentally genetically engineered is transferred. When the Irish depended on one strain of potato, the result was famine and death of historical proportions. Now America, with its dependence on single strains of corn and soybeans, is at risk of similar catastrophes (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). Also, in the end, much of the GMOs are used as livestock feed, not to solve world hunger. The USA, Argentina, and Brazil, for example, grow 77% of all GMOs, “nearly all destined for livestock” (Lappé). While the initial aims might be noble, the use of GMOs is detrimental to, among many other things, biodiversity.
All of this—the patenting, the pollution, and the GMOs—all adds up to a massive problem that must be addressed, and there seem to be several ways to do this. One route lies in changes to the legal system, at the national and international levels. On national levels, many countries have court cases that need to be revised or reversed completely through new trials to protect biodiversity. For example, one of the main reasons the Supreme Court of Canada cited for their decision against Schmeiser is that, in similar situations, the patenting of “a plasmid and a somatic cell culture” was allowed, and that the instance of patenting genes and cells was “somewhat analogous” and therefore legal (Monsanto Canada Inc. V. Schmeiser). With all due respect to the Canadian Supreme Court, “somewhat analogous,” in the context of the massive loss of our plant’s biodiversity, cannot be grounds for such a decision, even in the face of intellectual property rights. The Court was looking for precedents to work off which is completely understandable, but the consequences of their “somewhat analogous” can be rightly called “somewhat disastrous.” Monsanto went on to sue many other farmers whose crops had been contaminated while making no attempt to curtail the spread of seeds and pollen that causes the problems in the first place, effectively making it impossible for organic canola to be grown in the country. Foreign powers, most notably Australia, have banned the importation of Canadian canola products because of this (Kingsolver, Kingsolver, and Hopp). Other countries have similar cases that could be changed. In the United States, 1980’s Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which allowed corporations to patent entire seeds, could be repealed (Lappé). There are laws to be added, as well. Prop 37, a ballot referendum recently defeated in California, would have required companies to disclose what GMOs were in their food. There are existing national laws and international treaties, too, which ought to be amended. For example, the somewhat misnamed Plant Variety Protection Act in America, the Plant Varieties Act in India, and the corresponding treaty of the United Nations, have been found by numerous experts to be in direct conflict with those nations’ other laws and the UN’s other treaty regarding the biodiversity (Kothari). If the Variety laws and treaty can be amended to allow for the various conflicting provisions in the biodiversity laws and treaty, then they can still do their jobs protecting patent rights without being damaging to the environment.
Similarly, most people can, in their everyday lives, make small changes in their personal behavior to help shift the broader state of things while preserving their lifestyles. Shopping while informed is a large part of this. In general, it is healthier to know what it is one is eating than to simply buy things that look tasty. Support of local farmers through farmer’s markets, collectives, and other means strengthen the businesses of people who are trying to grow independent strains and use different farming methods. As the saying goes, “Think globally, act locally.” One can help end the large, overarching problems through the legislative and judicial systems, and one can use one’s own personal power as a consumer to support positive influences to biodiversity, or deny support to negative factors like Monsanto.
While the losses to biodiversity are still a serious problem, hope is far from gone. Actions can still be taken, on both local and global levels, to stem the losses and to reverse the trend. While the patenting of seeds and genes, the pollution and contamination caused by the production of new chemicals, and the uncontrolled genetic modification of organisms is harmful and will have worse consequences than have been shown already, it is not too late to preserve our planet’s biodiversity. Despite Monsanto’s best efforts, we and our planet can and will overcome these hurdles. We can still stand up, speak out, and change things. There’s still time to hurry on down to the farmer’s market, buy some local chives, organic apples, and homemade muffins. There’s still time to support the Percy Schmiesers of the world.
Works Cited
Grunwald, Michael "Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution: PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told." Washington Post 1 Jan. 2002: A01+. Washington Post. 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.
Kenney, Ian. ""What Are the Disadvantages of a GMO?"" Livestrong: The Limitless Potential of You. The Livestrong Foundation, 8 Aug. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Kingsolver, Barbara, Camille Kingsolver, and Steven L. Hopp. Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. Print.
Kothari, Ashish. "Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity: Are India's Proposed Biodiversity Act and Plant Varieties Act Compatible." Www.grain.org. N.p., 22 Jan. 1998. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
Lappé, Anna. "The Battle For Biodiversity: Monsanto and Farmers Clash." The Atlantic 28 Mar. 2011: n. pag. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
Leonard, Christopher. "Monsanto Squeezes Out Seed Business Competition, AP Investigation Finds." Huffington Post. N.p., 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2012
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmieser. Supreme Court of Canada. 21 May 2004. Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. Lexum Site, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
“Norman Borlaug: The Father of the Green Revolution”. Achievements.org. 13 Sep. 2009. 6 Dec. 2012.
Strachan, Janice M. "Plant Variety Protection: An Alternative to Patents." Probe 2.2 (1992): n. pag. United States Department of Agriculture: National Agriculture Library. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.