MELANIE JARMAN

My defence is on the grounds of public interest: I will explain what I believe this public 
interest to be so that it can be considered in the decision whether or not to grant this 
application. Initially to try and illustrate some of the trends which I see as being relevant 
to public interest I want to draw some parallels with history. These may give us a useful 
perspective on current changes, the speed of which outpaces our legislative and 
regulatory system's ability to barely recognise the changes, let alone respond to them. 
Public interest lies within the impact of these changes and it is only when we have 
attempted an understanding of these that we can begin to see the implications that genetic 
engineering raises for society. Seeing parallels in history also implies that we should 
learn lessons. As human beings we are meant to be an intelligent species:  I hope that at 
some point we will apply that intelligence fully and learn lessons from past experience.

In 1649 a group calling themselves The Diggers set up a camp at St George's Hill in 
Surrey. These people came together to oppose what they saw as the cause of massive 
social upheaval and dispossession - the Enclosure Acts.  These Acts privatised what had 
until then been 'the commons' - land to which people belonged and which was part of a 
community's inheritance. 'The commons', almost by definition but not necessarily by 
statute, was not something for government to sell however it became the private property 
and source of wealth for the already-rich. Land became a commodity to be possessed, 
changing the basis of people's economic security and the impact of this extended so far 
as to effect human relations as neighbour became employee. People began to view each 
other and everything around them in financial terms. This aspect of history is essential to 
understanding the public interest inherent in efforts to 'enclose' the world's gene pool. 
The Diggers acted in response to a threat to what they saw should be a common resource 
to support the life of the community rather than a trade-able commodity to be exploited. 
With the incredible and undoubtedly awe-inspiring technological advances which we are 
seeing in our century, we are presented with questions about whether we are prepared to 
allow genes, the building blocks for life, to be removed from the 'common treasury' and 
into the control of a handful of multinational companies. We are facing questions the 
likes of which I wonder whether the Diggers could have even dreamt. Our scientists are 
able to isolate, identify and recombine genes so that the gene pool is available as a raw 
resource. The awarding of patents, under Intellectual Property Rights administered by the 
World Trade Organisation, gives the marketplace the commercial incentive to exploit this 
resource. 

Are we prepared to allow a handful of biotechnology companies to enclose the genetic 
blueprint of millions of years of evolution so that it becomes privately held intellectual 
property? How, as a society, are we dealing with the responsibility of being presented 
with this choice? How will we deal with the attendant political implications of this 
enclosure? 

The Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva warns that this ultimate enclosure of the intellectual 
commons creates those with and those without, both in respect to the knowledge system 
and in respect to power. This is surely not compatible with public interest. Intellectual 
Property Rights have public interest implications beyond esoteric arguments over 
ownership; they have very concrete effects in the world today in a number of ways. 
Firstly, under what has been termed 'bio-piracy', the indigenous knowledge of countries 
in the South is being appropriated by scientists and corporations who obtain patents on 
biological resources and the knowledge of the uses and properties of these resources. 
Secondly poverty in farming communities in the South is increasing as farmers become 
locked into what the World Development Movement has described as "semi-serfdom 
with the seed companies". Poverty isn't just a projected outcome it is having effects now: 
in 1998 100s of Indian farmers committed suicide due to indebtedness linked to new 
hybrid seeds and the expensive chemical inputs needed to grow them. 'Semi-serfdom' 
sums up how the decision-making which formerly belonged to farmers as custodians of 
the land is being appropriated by agribusiness. Take for example Monsanto's 1996 
Roundup Ready Gene Agreement which included terms such as "the farmer must pay a 
$5 per bag technology fee; the farmer must give Monsanto the right to inspect, monitor 
and test his/her fields for up to 3 years; the farmer must use only Monsanto's brand of the 
glyphosate herbicide it calls Roundup; the farmer must give up his/her right to save and 
replant the patented seed. The farmer must also agree to pay Monsanto '100 times the 
then applicable fee for the Roundup Ready gene, times the number of units of transferred 
seed, plus reasonable  attorney's fees and expenses' should the farmer violate any portion 
of the agreement". The farmers' outcry against the stringent inspection and monitoring of 
their private property caused Monsanto to modify this final part of the agreement in 1997.

The ultimate enclosure of life must surely be represented by Monsanto's 'Terminator' 
technique, which consists of genetically disabling a plant and thus preventing the germ of 
harvested grain from developing.  Nature's ability to reproduce - viewed as a problem by 
those intending to use the seed industry as a source of profit - has been finally 
undermined through the production of a seed for which sterility is intrinsic. The 
Terminator technique gives both a distressing illustration of a corporate agenda and is an 
ominous example of the tremendous power being exercised around genetically 
engineered food. Monsanto, through mergers and acquisitions, has a stake in every single 
stage of the food production process, from patented seeds to a global distribution 
network. Can we trust those who wield this power? Experience to date would suggest 
otherwise.

In my first affidavit I note some previous examples where the plaintiff in this particular 
case has been proved not to have had people's well-being at the core of its activities.  I 
am yet to be convinced that their corporate culture has radically changed. I am deeply 
concerned over who owns the knowledge and discovery associated with the genetic 
make-up of the planet. I am deeply concerned that commercial pressures should dictate 
decisions over the food which we eat. "History is full of examples of people and cultures 
who lost fundamental freedoms, who were controlled by their need for food".  At what 
point will we acknowledge that we can lose no longer, that it is imperative to resist - in 
the case of genetic engineering - the undermining of fundamental freedoms by 
biotechnology companies, whose motivation I find it difficult to believe to be public 
interest? I need food but I do not need genetically engineered food.  I do not believe that 
it is beneficial or necessary neither at the immediate level of my health and well-being 
nor at the broader level of society's health and well-being.

History is full of examples where the parameters of society have shifted and possibilities 
for change have been created because of the actions of those who at the time were 
dismissed as mad or as bad. My co-defendants and I have been dismissed as terrorists, as 
instigators of fear and of tension, yet in the words of Martin Luther King, "we who 
engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the 
surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can 
be seen and dealt with". A whole host of questions is being raised in civil society around 
the application of genetic engineering in food yet our supposedly democratic process is 
trailing far behind in dealing with these. The responsibility then lies with all of us to 
consider what 'public interest' means. The responsibility lies with civil society to take the 
actions and the consequences which propose new parameters for social justice and for 
ecological sustainability. This presents a challenge to what is commonly perceived to be 
socially responsible behaviour, and is a challenge which, given the surge of interest in 
this case, is a very 'live' and relevant one.