In early 2001, the tragic story of Percy Schmeiser, a farmer of a 1000 acre canola farm in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, hit the mainstream press. Schmeiser had been sued by the agribusiness giant Monsanto for allegedly growing Monsanto's patented, genetically-engineered "Roundup Ready" canola without paying for the seed. An anonymous phone call by one of Schmeiser's neighbors had tipped off Monsanto's inspectors to take samples from Schmeiser's 1998 canola fields. At first, the defendant claimed that he had no idea how his field had become "contaminated" with Monsanto's seeds, speculating that perhaps they were the result of wind-blown seed or pollen from another GE field (despite that the nearest GE canola field was five miles away) or had bounced off trucks driving past his fields (despite being planted in neat rows). When news broke on March 29, 2001, that Schmeiser had been found guilty of "seed piracy" and ordered to pay a hefty fine to Monsanto, activist groups cried that big agribusiness would come after the defenseless small farmer whose fields had been inadvertently contaminated with GE crops. In some reports, Schmeiser is even described incorrectly as a "small organic canola farmer."

Yet the real story was not quite that clear cut. In court, Schmeiser claimed that, when spraying Roundup along the edge of a field to control weeds, he had inadvertently discovered Roundup resistant canola plants in one of his 1997 fields (Roundup Ready canola varieties had been first sold to Canadian farmers with much hoopla the preceding year). To examine this further, he then sprayed Roundup on a large portion of the same field and noted that many of the canola plants at the edge of the field survived. Schmeiser then saved the seeds from the plants that survived Roundup treatment and used those seeds to plant his entire 1000 acres the next year (1998). Tests on samples taken from Schmeiser's fields by Monsanto inspectors, from samples of his harvest collected by a local mill, and from court-ordered samples of all of his 1998 fields revealed that 95 to 99% of Schmeiser's 1998 crop was genetically engineered!

On March 29, 2001 a Saskatchewan federal judge found Schmeiser guilty of patent infringement, ruling that:

"[Schmeiser] seeded that [1998] crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiff's patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant." [line 125 in document below; italics added]

Schmeiser was fined $15,450 for the fees he should have paid Monsanto to plant the seed and up to $105,000 from the profits of his 1998 harvest. Read the original court ruling here [pdf file].

Schmeiser appealed the ruling to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal and lost again on September 4, 2002. The judge in that case agreed with the trial judge's decision:

"It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.

"In this case, Mr. Schmeiser cultivated glyphosate resistant canola plants. His 1998 canola crop was mostly glyphosate resistant, and it came from seed that Mr. Schmeiser had saved from his own fields and the adjacent road allowances in 1997. Although the Trial Judge did not find that Mr. Schmeiser played any part initially in causing those glyphosate resistant canola plants to grow in 1997, the Trial Judge found as a fact, on the basis of ample evidence, that Mr. Schmeiser knew or should have known that those plants were glyphosate resistant when he saved their seeds in 1997 and planted those seeds the following year. It was the cultivation, harvest and sale of the 1998 crop in those circumstances that made Mr. Schmeiser vulnerable to Monsanto's infringement claim." [section 56 and 57 in document below; emphasis in original]

Read the full text of the ruling in the appeals case here.

Schmeiser's legal battle ended on May 20, 2004, when the Canadian Supreme Court agreed with lower court rulings and sided with Monsanto:

"The appellants [Schmeiser et al] actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established."

The Supreme Court did set aside part of the earlier financial penalty against Schmeiser-- the requirement to pay Monsanto the profits from his 1998 crop. The Court ruled that Schmeiser did not earn any additional profit due to the use of Monsanto's variety above the profit he would have earned by using non-genetically engineered varieties alone. Read the full Supreme Court decision here.

Despite repeated defeats in court, and the strong evidence (including his own admission) that he knowingly and deliberately planted Roundup Ready canola in his 1998 fields, Schmeiser now has his own website and travels the world making appearances at anti-genetic engineering teach-ins, insisting upon his victimization by the biotech industry. According to the magazine Mother Jones: "Schmeiser is now a hero among small farmers and anti-GMO organizers around the world for taking on biotech agribusiness, their common enemy."