|
|
 
|
Schmeiser case items; other CropChoice news, commentary (Friday, Feb. 13, 2004 -- CropChoice news) -- The following three excerpts serve as a package of commentary regarding the Percy Schmeiser case. I've included the second based on a suggestion that CropChoice needed more balance. Links to other headlines follow.-- RS
Would a Schmeiser win hurt plant breeding?
(Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- In the wake of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, now being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, fear has been expressed about the consequences a Schmeiser win might have for plant breeding in Canada.
The Canadian Seed Trade Association, for example, has said that weakening patent protections would discourage seed companies from investing in or serving Canadian customers. It has also urged the government to adopt even more stringent plant protections than currently exist... http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2384
Don't pity poor Percy
(Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004 -- CropChoice news) -- Kevin Hursh, The Leader-Post (Regina), 01/21/04: Poor, downtrodden Percy. Some of those evil Roundup Ready canola seeds blew onto his property from passing trucks and now the huge multi-national monster known as Monsanto is trying to crush him like a bug.
What a hero for farmers everywhere. What an international icon. What a David taking on Goliath.
What a crock... http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2385
Observations on the Supreme Court hearing of Percy Schmeiser
(Monday, Feb. 2, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- I am not easy to impress, but young Terry Zakreski, the lawyer representing Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser, made an argument before the Supreme Court of Canada [Jan. 20, 2004] that was nothing short of brilliant. Not only was it original, with razor-sharp logic, but the delivery was calm, focused, deliberate, and articulate... http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2370
Bark a little louder
(Monday, Feb. 9, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- My article ‘The Divine Right of Stagnation’, which centered on the issue of genetically modified crops and property rights, ruffled the feathers of that tireless defender of the status quo, Paul Beingessner. Who responded shortly after with a characteristically, venomous op-ed titled ‘Saying It, Does Not Make It So’. In which he challenges my honesty, my sources and science itself. Well Paul, challenge accepted... http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2378
Some of the other stories, commentary on CropChoice this week: | |
