HOWEVER, I'm not convinced Percy Schmeiser can turn around and sue Monsanto.

Suppose my neighbor is growing corn, some sort of modern hybrid, and I'm growing an heirloom variety I wish to maintain the genetic purity of, who's responsible for protecting my corn from contamination?

Or, perhaps more relevant to my own interests, what if my neighbor is growing a cultivate variety of Big Bluestem from Nebraska and I'm trying to grow native Wisconsin Big Bluestem -- so I can sell the local ecotype seed to restoration ecologists -- who's responsible for protecting my Big Bluestem from contamination?

Seriously, are there laws requiring people to keep pollen from leaving their property and landing on my plants?

While I don't agree with the current patent laws, it is the law. Even the Wikipedia link in this article acknowledges that Mr. Schmeiser purposefully selected for plants that contained Monsanto's patented gene back in 1997 - which certainly constitutes as breaking the law.

He's welcome to try to change the laws (I welcome anything that allows more flexibility of biotechnology) but this isn't the way to go about it.

For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.

If there is anything worthy of being labeled Frankenfood, Canola is it. Once a source of industrial lubricant, rapeseed was subjected to radiation and chemical mutagenesis in the mid-20th century to eliminate two natural toxic compounds and convert the species to a source of "safe" edible oil.

Who knows what other genes were modified by the radiation and chemical treatments? Who knows whether more-subtle toxins remain? How many people are ill due to Canola but do not realize it? Has the Canola industry demonstated beyond any doubt that Canola is safe? Should we trust them? We seem to have a lot of health problems that emerged after humans started consuming large amounts of Canola oil.

Futhermore, the altered rapeseed plants -- products of intense radiation and chemical mutagenesis -- have escaped from agricultural fields and are pollinating wild relatives. Has anyone documented how this is effecting ecosystems? There should be a temporary ban on the growing of Canola until someone can prove it is safe.

I suppose it is the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. I thought folks interested in protecting our food supply followed higher ethical standards.

I myself would like to sue a few seed growers. I'd like the companies that continue to sell sweet clover and crown vetch seed to compensate me for the time and money I've put into trying to eliminate the noxious weeds from my prairie remnant. Now THAT'S genetic contamination! Whole packages of self-perpetuating exotic genes from another continent!

But I've given more thought to it. If Percy can sue Monsanto, if I might be able to sue a neighbor for contaminating heirloom corn, if I might be able to sue a neighbor for allowing his Nebraska Big Bluestem pollen to land on my Wisconsin Big Bluestem plants, then exactly what prevents Monsanto or my neighbor from doing the same thing to Percy or me?

Couldn't Monsanto demand that Percy keep his canola pollen and mustard plants out of THEIR fields? Afterall, contamination from his fields could ruin THEIR economically valuable crop or require Monsanto to spray more herbicide on their fields. My neighbor -- focusing on the hypothetical Big Bluestem conflict -- could complain that his cultivated Nebraska Big Bluestem is more important and shouldn't be contaminated by my Wisconsin Big Bluestem. He might claim his crop is important for survival of his farm, while mine is important only for restoring natural areas.

Percy's lawsuit, if it reinforces or creates a legal precedent, is going to open a very very nasty can of worms. If Monsanto has to compensate Percy, I imagine their lawyers are ready to launch their own cases against everyone who might have allowed pollen or weeds to "contaminate" Monsanto's fields. And the legal system tends to evaluate actions, not whether the actor is perceived as evil or heroic, too large, or just a small business.

Would someone who believes Percy Schmeiser is going to make the world a better place please explain how he can successfully sue Monsanto for damages, but large corporations or large farms will not in turn be able to sue smaller folks for the same reason?

In the meantime, just in case Percy wins, I guess I should start preparing to sue all of the folks intentionally planting or not eliminating sweet clover and crown vetch from the land around my  home. They are contaminating my property and should be paying to clean up the mess... plus compensating me for pain and suffering.

I think my Corn and Big Bluestem analogies are appropriate and I would like to see a serious response to my questions.

(1) If two people are each growing heirloom varieties or local ecotypes of a plant and wish to maintain the genetic purity of their populations, who is responsible for controlling the flow of pollen? Does the grower have to keep his pollen from leaving his property or the neighbor' pollen from getting to his plants? It is a simple question.

(2) I've repeatedly described the origin of Canola on this website and have yet to encounter a thoughtful response regarding how an organic label can be applied to an obvious product of radiation and chemical mutagenesis, a previously inedible plant that might still contain toxins.

(3) If Percy can sue Monsanto for the cost of ripping out undesired plants that sprouted from Monsanto's seed, can I sue a neighbor, perhaps an organic farmer, who plants sweet clover that invades my prairie remnant? I seriously view this as genetic contamination that can cancel out years of labor and financial investment in protecting/restoring a tiny part of a very endangered ecosystem.

I'm not asking these questions as a means of demonizing Percy. I don't think anyone is more or less the bad guy in this situation. I'm not asking these questions to clear the way for planting GMOs. I want to know how the legal system can possibly convict someone of "genetic pollution" without creating an enormous mess of not just folks like Percy suing large companies but the large companies suing folks like Percy.

And, seriously, if Percy wins his case, I wonder whether it sets or reinforces a precedent that would allow someone like myself -- interested in combating invasive plants -- to successfully sue those who sell, distribute, and grow plants like sweet clover and crown vetch and make them pay for removal of plants from my prairie remnant and tens of thousands of acres of other threatened habitat.

Last time I proposed something without presenting a 500-page analysis -- including background research, interviews, and expected results -- one of the Grist contributors gleefully shot down my idea and never returned to the thread to offer constructive criticism. His loss.

Anyway...

I propose the following solution to the "genetic pollution" problem. Based only upon what I was able to learn about corn by surfing the internet and my own experience planting apple trees, there should be a 300'-wide demilitarized zone around  each farm operation (150' carved off each farm). This is based on information that indicates heirloom varieties of corn have to be separated by 250' to prevent cross pollination. Perhaps the width of the zone would be less than or greater than 300', depending on the crops involved. One might even require growers of GMOs to be fully responsible for the zone -- my effort to appease organic farmers -- so smaller operations do not lose too much cultivated land.

The zone would accomplish far more than preventing the spread of "genetic pollution". I call it a demilitarized zone, because farmers would not be permitted to spray herbicides or pesticides over this area. Thus, it would serve as habitat for threatened pollinators (see Tom Phillpot's posts regarding this). It would also be a reservoir for potential weeds and pests that have not been exposed to herbicides and pesticides, therefore not pressured to develop resistance. Conventional growers would benefit because the chemicals they choose to use would be more effective. Finally, the wide strips would serve as wildlife habitat -- though only for edge species -- and corridors to connect different populations. For example, a lot of reptiles are threatened because they are stuck on "islands" surrounded by cultivated land. A web of green corridors might substanitally help them.

This SEEMS like a win-win-win-win-win (organic farmers, conventional farmers, bees, endangered plants, endangered animals) situation. It will remove some land from production, but the benefits would far outweigh the costs and the burden would be spread out to all involved.

Is this already being done somewhere? If so, is it working? If not, could it work? Seems better than battling one another via lawsuits.