Explore the vast range of titles available.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Acronyms -- Introduction -- 1 Agricultural Biotechnologies on the Farm and around the World -- 2 The Coming of the Third Regime? Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation in Canada and the United States -- 3 Biotechnology on the Prairies: The Rise of Canola . . . -- 4 . . . And the Fall of Wheat -- 5 Legal Offense and Defense on the Canadian Prairies -- 6 From When Cotton Was King to King Monsanto -- 7 Starting a New Regime: Training the Locals -- 8 Conclusion -- Appendix: Log of Interviews -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

This paper examines relations between the state and capital in Argentina with respect to agricultural biotechnology. Argentina is one of the world's leading exporters of genetically modified (GM) crops and is a key player in the global politics of biotechnology. Whereas in other parts of the world, including other countries in Latin America, active civil societies and some governments have rejected the technology, Argentina has adopted it as a central accumulation strategy. The desirability of this strategy has been secured in material, institutional and discursive arenas of power, producing a particular expression of ‘bio-hegemony’. Looking at the role of business in the political economy of agricultural biotechnology is revealing both of the extent and forms of corporate power and contributes to an understanding of hegemony in practice. Síntese: Este artigo examina as relações entre Estado e o capital na Argentina no tocante à agricultura biotecnológica. A Argentina é um dos líderes mundiais em exportação de safras geneticamente modificadas (GM) e nas políticas globais acerca da biotecnologia é um participante chave. Enquanto em outras partes do mundo – inclusive em outros países latino-americanos – sociedades civis ativas e alguns governos têm rejeitado essa tecnologia, a Argentina a adotou como uma estratégia central de acúmulo. O atrativo dessa estratégia foi assegurado em fóruns de poder materiais, institucionais e discursivos, produzindo a expressão particular “biohegemonia”. Analisar o papel dos negócios na política econômica para a agricultura biotecnológica é revelador tanto sobre a extensão quanto às formas do poder corporativo, e contribui para um entendimento da hegemonia na prática. Palavras-chave: agricultura, Argentina, biotecnologia, GMOs (Organismos Geneticamente Modificados), safras GM (Geneticamente Modificadas), soja, corporações multinacionais, Monsanto, Gramsci, hegemonia. Resumen: Este artículo examina la relación entre el Estado y el capital en Argentina con respecto a la biotecnología agrícola. Argentina es uno de los principales exportadores de granos genéticamente modificados (GM) y juega un papel clave en la política global de la biotecnología. Mientras que en otras partes del mundo, como en otros países latinoamericanos, movimientos de la sociedad civil y algunos gobiernos han rechazado dicha tecnología, Argentina la adoptado como una estrategia central de acumulación. La viabilidad de tal estrategia ha sido afianzada en círculos de poder materiales, institucionales y discursivos, dando como resultado una particular expresión de “bio-hegemonía”. Al ver el papel de los negocios en la economía política de la biotecnología agrícola resultan reveladoras tanto la extensión como las formas de poder corporativo y contribuye al entendimiento de la hegemonía en la práctica. Palabras clave: agricultura, Argentina, biotecnología, GMOs, granos GM, soya, corporaciones multinacionales, Monsanto, Gramsci, hegemonía

On 16 April 2019, the Supreme Court of Argentina rejected a claim filed by Monsanto, seeking patent protection for genetically modified (GM) seeds in Argentina. The decision is based on article 35 of the Argentine Patents and Utility Model Law No. 24.481 (Patent Law), which stipulates that any patent granted under this law shall have a non-renewable term of 20 years, starting from the filing date of the application. Monsanto had filed its claim in February 1996, i.e., more than 22 years ago. Without getting into the substantive issues of the legal action, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss Monsanto's claim on the basis of the expiration of the maximum possible period of validity of a patent.

In the mid-1990s, residents of Anniston, Alabama began a legal fight against the agrochemical company Monsanto over the dumping of PCBs in the city's historically African American and white working-class west side. Simultaneously, Anniston environmentalists sought to safely eliminate chemical weaponry that had been secretly stockpiled near the city during the Cold War. In this probing work, Ellen Griffith Spears offers a compelling narrative of Anniston's battles for environmental justice, exposing how systemic racial and class inequalities reinforced during the Jim Crow era played out in these intense contemporary social movements.Spears focuses attention on key figures who shaped Anniston--from Monsanto's founders, to white and African American activists, to the ordinary Anniston residents whose lives and health were deeply affected by the town's military-industrial history and the legacy of racism. Situating the personal struggles and triumphs of Anniston residents within a larger national story of regulatory regimes and legal strategies that have affected toxic towns across America, Spears unflinchingly explores the causes and implications of environmental inequalities, showing how civil rights movement activism undergirded Anniston's campaigns for redemption and justice.

Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, \"the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item\" and confers on the purchaser \"the right to use (or) sell\" the item as he pleases, but not to make identical new items. In some tension with this principle is the conditional sales doctrine, which allows the patentee to limit exhaustion of its patent rights through contractual terms. Last Term, in Bowman v. Monsanto Co, the Supreme Court held that patent exhaustion doctrine did not allow a farmer who purchased self-replicating, genetically modified seeds to reproduce them through replanting without the patentee's permission. The Court reached the correct outcome but via the wrong route. The Court should have applied the conditional sales doctrine -- a doctrine better suited to address the unique challenges posed by self-replicating technologies -- rather than decide the case on exhaustion grounds and obfuscate the function of the licensing agreement.

In view of new developments in genetic engineering and in the context of a globalized economy, in which what sacrifices one, is won by the other, the law assumes a role of settling and balancing these overlapped interests. This article aims to present a concrete analysis of the European Court of Justice Decision of July 6, 2010, that established the spatial and temporal application of the Article 9 of the European Directive 98/44/EC. This rule determines that the protection conferred by a patent for a DNA sequence, integrated with other products, depends on the exercise of the function for which it was patented. A decision in this direction has a major influence on innovation impulse by allowing the appearance of new scenarios caused by different uses of the protected sequences. The rights of big knowledge innovators such as Monsanto, must be surrounded by a clear legal framework concerning the extension of the protection conferred; otherwise, the commercialization, development and creation of new products would be limited in excess. Adapted from the source document.

GM foods have the potential to provide significant benefits for developing countries. Over 800 million people are chronically undernourished, and 180 million children are severely underweight for their age. By 2020, there will be an extra two billion mouths to feed. Ecological approaches that underpin sustainable agriculture (e.g., integrated pest management) and participatory approaches that strengthen farmers' own experimentation and decision making are key. Biotechnology will be an essential partner, if yield ceilings are to be raised, if crops are to be grown without excessive reliance on pesticides, and if farmers on less favored lands are to be provided with crops that are resistant to drought and salinity, and that can use nitrogen and other nutrients more efficiently. Over the past 10 years, in addition supporting ecological approaches, the Rockefeller Foundation has funded the training of some 400 developing-country scientists in the techniques of biotechnology. Most of the new crop varieties are the result of tissue culture and marker-aided selection. The Foundation also supports the production of genetically engineered rices, including a new rice engineered for beta carotene (the precursor of Vitamin A) in the grain. Some specific steps can be taken by Monsanto that would improve acceptance of plant biotechnology in both the developing and the industrialized worlds: label; disavow gene protection (terminator) systems; phase out the use of antibiotic resistance markers; agree (with big seed companies) to use the plant variety protection system, rather than patents, in developing countries; establish an independently administered fellowship program to train developing-country scientists in crop biotechnology, biosafety, and intellectual property; donate useful technologies to developing countries; agree to share financial rewards from intellectual property rights on varieties such as basmati or jasmine rice with the countries of origin; and finally, develop a global public dialogue that treats developing-country participants as equal partners.

Abundant Land is a one-hour documentary about a Hawaiian community on Molokai opposing the biotech industry's use of the island to test genetically engineered seeds. Agrochemical biotech corporations are depleting Molokai's topsoil and freshwater while contributing to dust storms that spread pesticides into the ocean and surrounding communities. Abundant Land offers a historical look at the intrusion and political underpinnings of chemical-intensive farming in Hawaii while portraying the rich legacy of traditional Hawaiian land management and farming self-sufficiency.The film's narrative develops through a series of personal and community stories as the documentary follows several dedicated residents who seek transparency about the agrochemical testing being done on their island, and their ensuing efforts to heal and repair it. From initial grassroots efforts that give rise to organized actions, Molokai residents learn through leadership and study to use permaculture techniques to restore an integrated food system based on ancient Hawaiian farming practices. Featuring interviews with Dr. Vandana Shiva, Walter Ritte, Malia Akutagawa, Mercy Ritte, Geoff Lawton, and Hector Valenzuela.

She examines the decision-making processes at Monsanto that led to their making the drug available and discusses corporate, academic, and regulatory decision-making in the context of a restructured global political economy for agriculture. Mills shows that there was consensus about the scientific evidence but interpretation of that evidence differed depending on the context from which it was viewed. Scientists who analysed it for regulatory bodies interpreted it differently than scientists in corporate or academic institutions, and scientists in Canada and Europe interpreted it differently than those in the United States. In the United States it was assumed that any problems arising from its use could be taken care of within the existing dairy system; in Canada and Europe these problems were regarded as legitimate animal welfare issues. While all regulatory bodies agreed that human health problems were unlikely, in Canada the Health Protection Branch questioned this, but ultimately rejected the drug on animal health grounds.