Slashdot Mirror

My case in point is how Monsanto patented life in their seeds, and now dominate the markets

So? Aren't plant breeders allowed to have a return on their investment? My favorite apple, SnowSweet, is patented, and were it not for the success of the breeder's last patented apple, HoneyCrisp, it might not exist today. Why should Monsanto be any different? I don't care whether you like them or not, but they're not in the wrong on this one. And by the way, their first patent expires in 2014, and they plan to let it. Seems like they're doing it a lot better than the RIAA & MPAA are handling copyright.

Watch Food Inc. to get the gist of that nightmare

Ugh. That's like saying listen to Jenny McCarthy to understand the vaccine nightmare. Food Inc was biased rubbish geared towards people who know nothing about agriculture. I couldn't even stomach the damn thing. If it's patents you're concerned about, think about this tidbit:

"I have been for years in correspondence with leading breeders, nurserymen, and federal officials, and I despair of anything being done at present to secure to the plant breeder any adequate returns for his enormous outlays of energy and money. A man can patent a mousetrap or copyright a nasty song, but if he gives the world a new fruit that will add millions to the value of the earth’s annual harvests he will be fortunate if he is rewarded so much as having his name connected with the result. Though the surface of the plant experimentation has thus far been only scratched and there is so much immeasurably important work to be done in this line, I would hesitate to advise a young man, no matter how gifted or devoted, to adopt plant breeding as a life work until America takes some action to protect his unquestioned right to some benefit from his achievements."

Sound like paid defender of Monsanto? Nope, that was from a letter written by Luther Burbank, one of the most famous and visionary plant breeders who ever lived, who lived in an age when Mendelian genetics were still novel and was an early supporter of plant patents whose views helped create the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (though he died before it was passed). Plant breeding, and genetic engineering, is a hard, time consuming process that adds a lot of value to the world. Farmers wouldn't buy crops with production orientated traits if they weren't beneficial, and consumers tend to liek things that taste good (like HoneyCrisp apples, which just went off patent recently). Those who do contribute to the world in such a meaningful way deserve their fair share of the return for their investment.

When it comes to patents of science, I don't trust them

Fair enough, I'm not big fan of them either, and I can think of a few. By all means, keep a close eye on corporations, I'm not saying they're to be fully trusted, but there is a big difference between science and a product, and a big difference between a reasonable patent allowing the inventor to get a return on investment.

I like plant patents, I like like that those in plant improvement can make a living, and so should you. I like my SnowSweet, and the program that made it might not even be able to exist without patents. That's just the way of the world. Yes, it'd be nice if this stuff had more public funding (a lot more), but instead funding for these sorts of things at universities is being increasingly cut by short sighted assholes (at my university, the university's president, a pompous douchebag if ever there were one, cut the ag department's budget while increasing his own salary), and no wonder, when people know so little about agriculture that Food Inc wins awards, who can be surprised that this is where we end up, with large corporations leading the way?

You are giving him crap about using a word that sounds exactly the same, then you type a company's name incorrectly?

http://www.monsanto.com/Pages/default.aspx

The name is one word, not two, but at least you used all the letters in the correct order. :)

I see a big difference between a company that sets some ethical standards but doesn't always live up to it and a company that doesn't have any.

Yeah, the difference is your perception, claiming to have some sort of standards or not doing so has nothing to do with actual conduct. If anything, corporations tend to publish ethical standards as a form of damage control after getting caught. Go look at any other large evil corporation, it'll have a neat claim of that sort: Microsoft, Monsanto ...

Monsanto doesn't have anything to do with Golden Rice? Then you'd better tell CBS they are wrong. And Monsanto.

Falcon

Actually those Evil Bastards do produce sterile crop seeds.
For those crops where they don't they might as well be, they sue you into oblivion if you save your seed for later.

Did you know those Evil Bastards own 95% of the soybean crop? That there is only 5% of the corp left that is not GMO? Just in case someone from that group of Evil Bastards is reading this: I plan on planting non GMO soy, just to keep the strain alive. I will send my heirloom seeds to anyone who wants them, free of charge. Sadly I only have a 10 sq foot area to plant, but I'm going to do it anyway, just to make a point.

Also you Evil Bastards: Fuck you.
-nB

Actually those Evil Bastards do produce sterile crop seeds.
For those crops where they don't they might as well be, they sue you into oblivion if you save your seed for later.

Did you know those Evil Bastards own 95% of the soybean crop? That there is only 5% of the corp left that is not GMO? Just in case someone from that group of Evil Bastards is reading this: I plan on planting non GMO soy, just to keep the strain alive. I will send my heirloom seeds to anyone who wants them, free of charge. Sadly I only have a 10 sq foot area to plant, but I'm going to do it anyway, just to make a point.

Also you Evil Bastards: Fuck you.
-nB

Actually those Evil Bastards do produce sterile crop seeds.
For those crops where they don't they might as well be, they sue you into oblivion if you save your seed for later.

Did you know those Evil Bastards own 95% of the soybean crop? That there is only 5% of the corp left that is not GMO? Just in case someone from that group of Evil Bastards is reading this: I plan on planting non GMO soy, just to keep the strain alive. I will send my heirloom seeds to anyone who wants them, free of charge. Sadly I only have a 10 sq foot area to plant, but I'm going to do it anyway, just to make a point.

Also you Evil Bastards: Fuck you.
-nB

Actually those Evil Bastards do produce sterile crop seeds.
For those crops where they don't they might as well be, they sue you into oblivion if you save your seed for later.

Did you know those Evil Bastards own 95% of the soybean crop? That there is only 5% of the corp left that is not GMO? Just in case someone from that group of Evil Bastards is reading this: I plan on planting non GMO soy, just to keep the strain alive. I will send my heirloom seeds to anyone who wants them, free of charge. Sadly I only have a 10 sq foot area to plant, but I'm going to do it anyway, just to make a point.

Also you Evil Bastards: Fuck you.
-nB

First point: You really believe that? You don't eat at all? You don't live in the same world as farmers? "I am not a programmer, so the laws on software patents don't affect me at all. Zero." What utter crap. You must be fourteen and on a Matrix trip or something.

Second point. Maybe my choice of words was bad, I didn't want to write a novel. Anyway, you just used it to evade the discussion. Poor form.

For the record, I for one am scared even by what Mosanto apparently believes to be reassuring spin.

This article on monsanto.com makes it very plain:

"Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way."

In spite of this reassurance, one can't rule out the possibility that Monsanto will decide later that it's in their own best interest to market a sterile seed technology.

Monsanto has persecuted many farmers for allegedly saving the seeds of their GM plants (corn, soybeans, and cotton) for planting. See http://www.monsanto.com/seedpatentprotection/monsantos_position.asp for one of the several Monsanto resources that discusses this practice. There's very little a farmer can do to protect his business when Monsanto makes such an accusation. The legal battles can last years, and are devastating.

This article on monsanto.com makes it very plain:

"Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way."

In spite of this reassurance, one can't rule out the possibility that Monsanto will decide later that it's in their own best interest to market a sterile seed technology.

Monsanto has persecuted many farmers for allegedly saving the seeds of their GM plants (corn, soybeans, and cotton) for planting. See http://www.monsanto.com/seedpatentprotection/monsantos_position.asp for one of the several Monsanto resources that discusses this practice. There's very little a farmer can do to protect his business when Monsanto makes such an accusation. The legal battles can last years, and are devastating.

"I hear that Monsanto is asking for recount -- http://www.monsanto.com/foodinc/." he said satirically.

If you like that kind of thing, other companies will gladly accept you.

I prefer Google the way it is.

Once again, truth is stranger than fiction: http://www.biotechknowledge.monsanto.com/biotech/knowcenter.nsf/ID/AE2560ABE94F03B786256B90007E14F2?OpenDocument

A bit of an emendation:

His life's work on developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops and giving them away for free...

That's what fundamentally made him a good recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. He made high-yield new seeds, and encouraged farmers to use them, spread them, replant them in subsequent years, etc., giving them greater food security and freedom. He didn't, to the contrary, patent them, prohibit replanting seeds in subsequent years, and so on. That would have still increased crop yields, but would've made farmers dependent on Borlaug to buy seeds every year, which was the opposite of his intention.

from http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/pig_patent.asp

In 2007, Monsanto sold Monsanto Choice Genetics to Newsham Genetics LC of West Des Moines, Iowa. The transaction was completed in November 2007, and Monsanto is no longer in the swine breeding business.

Since a Greenpeace publicity announcement in 2005, rumors have continued to circulate among activists and on the internet that Monsanto is trying to patent pig genes. When Monsanto owned the business, the company performed research work for a patent application related to a specific gene marker for a pig trait, but not for the trait itself, and also a patent application for a unique set of breeding processes, including an artificial insemination method. Monsanto never filed a patent application for a pig gene.

Thereâ(TM)s been some rather wild speculation that these patent applications would prohibit pig farmers from breeding lines of pigs to which they had always freely bred. This isnâ(TM)t true. Any claims issued from these patent applications would apply to only animals and their offspring which had been bred using marker technology covered by patent claims.

In any case, the sale to Newsham Genetics included any and all swine-related patents, patent applications, and all other intellectual property. Weâ(TM)re out of the pig business.

... or eat corn grown domestically.

These guys are taking good care of that for ya'. Grow your own corn and fleece a company out of a buck will you, you commie bastard.

That's quite interesting. If they stated this as part of their "sales pitch", then it would probably be a valid defense during a suit. If some of their less-reputable (or less-informed) managers said so while talking to someone who is not directly in charge of making a purchasing decisions, then they were just yapping.

I didn't spend much tyme but I found these:

"New Seed And Gene Protection Methods: Monsanto's Position
In the event of a successful cross-pollination between a biotech-improved plant with GP and a traditional plant, the seed produced by the out-crossed plant would be sterile. The environmental impact of such a cross-pollination would therefore be extremely limited and temporary one generation of the individual seeds cross-pollinated.

"Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready Soybean Event 40-3-2"[pdf]
"Cross-pollination is generally very low and various studies have shown it to be from 0.03 to 3.62% between adjacent rows"

I'd go so far as to say that it's common knowledge that 'Big Pharma' doesn't want to give you a cure - just something for the symptoms. Curing a problems makes is go away, reducing the symptoms of an incurable disease is money in the bank. Sycophants.

Yeah... I for one won't mind seeing 'Big Pharma' in bankruptcy right next to the **AA.

No, the cure to the next plague will come from an independently funded research group or non-profit. The plague will probably come from Monsanto.

Gates is right, we need to figure out a way for capitalism to inspire humans to help humans, and the planet in general. Capitlism makes use of our natural greed to create productivity and it's been a wonderful invention - but now it's time to upgrade. Capitalism Vista? Oh, wait - I said "upgrade".

On a side note: ever notice how even the most ruthless people seem to become 'nicer' when they start getting older and start to see the 'big picture'? I guess it'll even happen to little Billy Gates... speaking of sycophants.

Everybody here seems to be very hostile to GM crops. I hold highly those who have been gracious enough to point at flaws in technology behind GM crops. I detest, however, folks who try to discredit crop genetic engineering for no other reason but corporations that develop GM seeds. I have a question for these people: "Is it Monsanto, Bayer, or DuPont that you hate or their scientists, the hardworking and courageous men and women, who work their hearts and souls out to develop technologies that potentially can benefit humanity? I am from Africa (please don't hurl racial epithets at me) and I have witnessed kids die of hunger because every time the so-called indigenous seeds are planted, they yield nothing. I don't intend to say GM crops are the solution to global food problems. No. But they have their place in alleviating food insecurity. It's disingenuous for anyone to dismiss crop genetic engineering offhand. I have written as much on GM crops in my blog, GMO Africa. I am a strong supporter of GM crops because I believe the world can't afford to bracket off new technologies, including agricultural biotechnology, from taking off.

'I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.'

Pretty similar things are happening already. See this for a sample:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/crop_protection/roundup_rewards.asp

'Roundup Ready' plants are GMOs modified to confer resistance to a herbicide sold (of course) by the same company. And yes, there's an annual license and an anonymous hotline to report violators (PDF):

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/stewardship.pdf

'I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.'

Pretty similar things are happening already. See this for a sample:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/crop_protection/roundup_rewards.asp

'Roundup Ready' plants are GMOs modified to confer resistance to a herbicide sold (of course) by the same company. And yes, there's an annual license and an anonymous hotline to report violators (PDF):

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/stewardship.pdf

On their webpage they have a link to a letter from the CEO about the Monsanto Pledge:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/our_pledge /letter_grant.asp

An interesting quote from the letter:
"Obviously, we still have challenges. They include how to secure our intellectual property in parts of the world where the legal protection is not yet mature."

Al oxydises (Al2O3 I think) instantly so it is never "pure". Yes, it builds up in your system so people learn of aluminum pots and stuff. But metals are not dangerous to dispose because they are just returned to the environment where they came from. The problem is in man made chemicals and atoms (ie. nuclear waste) that probably should not be dumped into the environment. We do not know the long term consequences of these man made chemicals, yet we are using them.

For example, the good old Roundup herbicide. It was suppose to kill all plants except the special genetically modified ones and disintegrate instantly in soil. Unfortunately, it does neither any more. Now we have "weeds" that are resistant just as plants and Roundup ends up in people's water supply and water bodies. Herbicide is toxic to aquatic life, so having it in water is not a good idea.

Although Monsanto MSDS disagrees:
    http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundu p-MSDS-Docs7072.htm
    http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/content/cro p_pro/msds/roundup_orig_max.pdf

Regardless, the 1/2 life is up to 172 days in soil and 7 days in water. Enough to pollute water supplies.

Long term effects in humans? Unknown because never tested (how could it be?). I guess it is being tested now.

Anyway, that is the problem with man made stuff. We do not know what it does or how it will propagate in the environment. We do not know so we assume it is ok? At least that's the current idea. And then it ends up on our plates and then we panic as it is not suppose to be there. I guess ignorance is bliss after all.

"When they finally get there, they discover..."

They accidentally bought the seeds from Monsanto and they only get one crop :(

I've always liked the idea of let down endings, more dramatic that way (aka million dollar baby)

Blossom
A virtual plant that responds to productivity, not sunlight and water. Had a good session in Excel? Your plant will thrive. Play too much Warcraft? Expect some withering.

...now, how about stopping attempts to require microchip implants (PDF link; sorry) in livestock which would render the few remaining family farms untenable and complete agritech's stranglehold on our food supply.

My God, you are truly a pathetic nerd. He "stole" money, huh? From people who purchased his product?

Steal. v. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

If I go to your house, take away your money, but give back a "gift" in exchange, would you consider it stealing? Specially if that "gift" cannot replace the money I took away?

To put it in other words, if I FORCE YOU to buy my products, either by threatens or by AN IMPOSED MONOPOLY, I am, in fact, stealing.

Alright, you don't like the term? How about UNFAIR TAXES? To breathe, you must pay a tax. Or in this case, to run your business, you MUST purchase Microsoft Windows(TM). Of course, everything has its price...

The only difference between a monopoly and taxes, is that, unlike taxes, the owner of a monopoly does not have the legal obligation to return that money to the people. So we are, in fact, under a technological dictatorship.

See where I'm getting at?

Straining there aren't we chuck. MS has compition, there are alternatives. People are just not into learning how to use the competition no matter how easy it is. Just as VHS was successful because it was "good enough" MS is #1 because it is "good enough". They are just about as decietful and evil as any other company. Us geeks dislike them because the the biggest most obvious target of what we think the tech industry is doing wrong.

there is not a shred of evidence to support ID

Seraphim

You might not remember, but before Monsanto took over, farmers usually didn't purchase patented, genetically crippled (can't reproduce) seeds. Instead, they used part of their harvest as seeds for the next year. Thus, they would have most seeds at harvest time. ;)

Monsanto's very own website has a press release detailing a settlement with the SEC and DOJ for bribing officials in Indonesia and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Indymedia has further links.

Why has this taken so long to become a Slashdot issue? This has been going on for years!
Perhaps if you'd all like to follow this link and browse around etc, for 10 mins, then perhaps Slashdot will do the world some good.

The real question, imho, is will Monsanto try to collect royalties for the use of their genetic patent portfolio and IP?

It would be *really* funny if they sued the drug cartels for patent license violations.

I don't know who I dislike more, Monsanto or the Drug Cartels...

-davidu

What does it profit America to gain the whole world, and lose its soul?

I don't think
those are
the type of
profits
they are
worried
about.

Wheee, I forgot an entire paragraph.

To boycott Monsanto, avoid buying NutriSweet (particularly Equal), Roundup (the son of Agent Orange and granson of DDT), any Ortho lawncare products. Also, avoid any food made with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's); many of them are Monsanto GMO's, and the other GMO's aren't any better.

Monsanto has consistently been in my list of BigEvil for a while now. Historically, they are the company that brought us DDT, PCB's and Agent Orange. Currently, they're the ones seeding farmer's crops with pollen containing genes that they have patented, and then suing the farmers for patent violations. Also, getting the World Bank to pressure third world countries to abandon traditional crops in favor of licensing Monsanto GMO seed, a license which requires annual renewal of course.

According to this page which I found linked from this comment Monsanto does sell the stuff, though. In fact I just visited this page on Monsanto's site which says that "Monsanto remains the primary global producer of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. In postpatent markets around the world, Roundup has maintained market leadership and a premium brand position." Hence their production of roundup-resistant crops clearly goes hand in hand with their production of the active ingredient in Roundup, and makes anything they might say about basically anything highly suspicious.

Also, feel free to let Monsanto know what you think.

Nope, it's not a joke. Genetic engineers (*To0t tOot!*) can get patents on new strains they engineer in the laboratory, because the law has determined that DNA is to be considered "intellectual property". If Micro$oft has done the legwork to determine whether the strain of apple tree they've patented is in fact a new variation on the apple, and they've provided the proper paperwork backing up their claim, then they have every f---ing legal right to patent their trees, especially if they can make money off that DNA being spliced with other apples.
Click here for more details.

When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it.

If that were the case, Monsanto would have stopped selling Posilac long ago. On the other hand, when your executives are appointed to the EPA, and you can prevent the news from airing the truth, who cares about the puss content of 1/3rd of America's childrens' milk?

Customers have all kinds of choice. It is awareness and influence that are starkly lacking in the modern America.

Absolutely. The last web application I developed was targetted for Tomcat 4.0.18 on Solaris. Due to unrelated issues, it was switched to JRun 4.0 on Windows at the last moment, with, if I recall correctly, some very minor config file changes to support connection pooling. It might have been changed back to Solaris by now, left that job back in November.

Now that's what I call Opening the Door to New Possibilities.

Don't joke about that - go read up on what Monsanto think is reasonable use of their seeds... Monsanto is one of the largest seed manufacturers in the world, and one of their pet peeves is that farmers who collect seeds from their harvest are undermining their income stream. To the point where they are trying to restrict it with license agreements, patents and genetically modified crops that don't produce viable seeds...

They've got a reason to be worried about importing genetically engineered crops into Zimbabwe, especially if it's seed from Monsanto. There is a story on Guerilla News Network about a Canadian farmer whose crop was infected with Monsanto engineered crop he never wanted and still was made to pay:

" (GNN) In a Kafkaesque ruling sure to send a chill up the spines of farmers around the world, a Canadian farmer has been ordered to pay thousands of dollars to Monsanto for violating their patent on genetically modified canola seed. The twist: the farmer, Percy Schmeiser, says he is accused of stealing something he never wanted in the first place. Schmeiser's fields were contaminated when pollen from genetically engineered seeds blew onto his then GE-free land from neighboring farms. Shortly after, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm, took seed samples without his permission, and then charged him with violating Canadian patent law that says it's illegal for farmers to re-use or to grow Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement. Even though it was Schmeiser whose fields were polluted with organisms he never wanted, the court says he must now pay Monsanto $10,000 for licensing fees and up to $75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop."

You can read the rest of the article here. For more in-depth information go to Percy Schmeiser's website.I especially like the part where they fly over farmers' fields and dump chemicals on them without knowledge or permission of the farmer to "prove" the farmers were using their seeds.

They can.

Fast forward a few years to 2000, and Monsanto was merged into Pharmacia and ceased to exist as a seperate company. The new company decided that it wanted to be just a pharmaceutical company, so it spun off a big piece of itself and named the new company Monsanto, because of the "proud heritage" of the original name.

This is obviously not such a good idea in retrospect, as the new company, which has nothing to do with PCBs, is now getting a big black eye in the media. However, if you check the markets, it's Solutia whose stock price has plummeted, which indicates that the big investors, at least, know which is which.

i was looking at monsanto's website and came across this interesting tidbit:

it's the 1990 Monsanto Pledge! though i'm tempted to forward the link to the parent article to them i'm sure they'd just ignore me.

All of what jayed_99 says is true.

However, the original idea with terminator seeds was that they would (I'm not sure how well it works - I gather it doesn't but Monsanto policy seems to be that objective truth is foreign to their religion) produce non-fertilising pollen. So, the seeds that monsanto sells are a hybrid of line A (fertile) and line B (fertile) which produces line C, which they sell, and which doesn't produce fertile pollen OR fertile seeds. In addition to meaning that you can't grow up line C yourself, or make your own lines that include whatever favorable genes where transgenically introduced into line C, this means that line C's pollen can't contaminate non engineered crops nearby, which is a huge problem with other GM foods (pause, looks askance at my Dorito.)

Now, terminator seeds are basically a dead issue because folks like jayed_99 simply refused to buy them.

This means that people are growing up (or being forced to grow up, by cross polination) the GM crops that Monsanto sells without paying for new seeds each time.

So, the next part of Monsanto's evil plan is to make their money selling chemicals (which they also make) instead of the GM crops themselves. Enter roundup ready Corn. You want evil, there's your classic Monsanto evil. The idea is that they can go ahead and give away the GM crops (although they'll continue to charge while they can), because the only thing the GM crops are good for is buying mroe roundup.... from Monsanto.

So, the trend in agro genetic engineering is to do stuff like that. Genetically engineering crops that resist perishability better, or which inherently resist pests, or are more nutritious, may be a losing proposition because the product is a living thing that is not easily controlled. However, genetically engineering pesticide resistance lets you sell more of your pesticide, which is where the big money is, anyway.

Of course, as a medical geneticist, I may have an unfair bias against evil (which seems to be Monsanto's position vis a vis the union of concerned scientists)

An interesting aspect of this is that companies like Monsanto are putting "terminator genes" into their GM seeds which cause the next generation of the seed to be non-viable. This prevents farmers from growing from their own seed, effectively forcing them to buy new seed every year.

It's easy to draw parallels between this and companies that prevent you from copying their media even though it would be legal under the Fair Use standard.

It smells sneaky and devious to me, but I guess they have a right to do what they want with their own Intellectual Property. If you don't like the terms you don't have to buy it.

[Oil companies] don't have a monopoly on water.

You're right. They don't. Now Monsanto on the other hand...