Slashdot Mirror

When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us. More than 325,000 farmers a year buy seed under these agreements in the United States. Other seed companies sell their seed under similar provisions. They understand the basic simplicity of the agreement, which is that a business must be paid for its product. The vast majority of farmers understand and appreciate our research and are willing to pay for our inventions and the value they provide. They donâ(TM)t think it's fair that some farmers donâ(TM)t pay.

A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 147 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 8 per year for the past 18 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.

Here is one such case:

The Bowman case has come about after the 75-year-old farmer bought soybeans from a grain elevator near his farm in Indiana and used them to plant a late-season second crop. He then used some of the resulting seeds to replant such crops in subsequent years. Because he bought them from a third party which put no restrictions on their use, Bowman has argued he is legally able to plant and replant them and that Monsanto's patent on the seeds' genes does not apply.

Monsanto, which has won its case against Bowman in lower courts, vociferously disagrees. It argues that it needs its patents in order to protect its business interests and provide a motivation for spending millions of dollars on research and development of hardier, disease-resistant seeds that can boost food yields.

My limited understanding of the American legal system is that most civil lawsuits are settled out of court so I assume here that that is what happened to the 92%. On their own web site ( https://monsanto.com/company/m... ) Monsanto writes:

There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.

Which seams to support my assumption. Also according to their commitment to farmers ( https://monsanto.com/company/c... ) we find item #10:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Just words of course but it would be quite hard for them to sue for such a case without having this text thrown in their face by the defendants lawyers.

Also they make no money from these lawsuits: https://monsanto.com/company/m...

Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs.

My limited understanding of the American legal system is that most civil lawsuits are settled out of court so I assume here that that is what happened to the 92%. On their own web site ( https://monsanto.com/company/m... ) Monsanto writes:

There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.

Which seams to support my assumption. Also according to their commitment to farmers ( https://monsanto.com/company/c... ) we find item #10:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Just words of course but it would be quite hard for them to sue for such a case without having this text thrown in their face by the defendants lawyers.

Also they make no money from these lawsuits: https://monsanto.com/company/m...

Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs.

My limited understanding of the American legal system is that most civil lawsuits are settled out of court so I assume here that that is what happened to the 92%. On their own web site ( https://monsanto.com/company/m... ) Monsanto writes:

There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.

Which seams to support my assumption. Also according to their commitment to farmers ( https://monsanto.com/company/c... ) we find item #10:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Just words of course but it would be quite hard for them to sue for such a case without having this text thrown in their face by the defendants lawyers.

Also they make no money from these lawsuits: https://monsanto.com/company/m...

Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs.

Monstersanto has created this negative climate by going after farmers and even people who aren't using their seeds

That's an urban legend has been busted for a long time:

Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.

This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.

In fact, Monsanto has publicly pledged that it won't do that:

Why does Monsanto sue farmers when Monsanto seed blows into their fields?

We don't sue farmers who have accidentally ended up with trace amounts of our seeds in their fields, and we've made a commitment that we never will.

Doubtful. The farmers signed EULAs agreeing to not save seeds. The lexmark case here didn't seem to be covered by a EULA. Lexmark was suing a company that was refilling customers' printer cartridges. I'm guessing the refiller didn't sign an agreement with lexmark saying we won't do that. Lexmark maybe could have users sign EULAs agreeing to not refill their cartridges, but then they'd have to sue their own individual customers. Which would quickly kill lexmark. Monsanto on the other hand can clearly get away with suing their own customers since they're so dominant, and there are extremely high barriers for other competitors.

Additionally, there's not much reason to save seeds.

As I understand it, the seeds are hybrids designed to have a good balance of features. Second generation seeds from that wouldn't have those features. You plant a field of corn that's roundup ready. You spray glyphosphate on them. The corn lives, all other plants die. You save a bunch of money doing that instead of repeatedly spraying less effective heribcides. You decide to save even more money by replanting a portion of the corn you got from that crop. You spray glyphosphate on them and a lot of the corn dies. It's inbred corn, the glyphosphate resistance gene has not been carried in a good portion of the next generation. On top of that, the other traits carefully selected for aren't uniform either. Evidently even before Monsanto was around, most farmers weren't saving seeds for that reason.

Disclaimer: I'm not a farmer or a plant biologist, and monsanto DOES spend a ton of effort on punitive lawsuits and propaganda, so I could be entirely misinformed here.

We have monocultures without GMO.

To which I explicitly stipulated in my comment. GMO property rights have demonstrably caused farmers problems. Those problems may have been brought on more by the farmers than the GMOs, but they have certainly occurred. In addition to those problems, I also anticipate problems in the future. As we cede power to massive agro/chemical corporations, they will inevitably take advantage. This is borne out by all of human history.

Here is an example of an IP right causing a problem for farmers:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsvi...

The point is valid, if you use a computer to for you livelyhood, aka you die if you don't use it and Microsoft is the only supplier you can use, then yes you are a slave to Microsoft.

And although Greenpeace have influence, I am sure that they are dwarfed by the marketing budget of monsanto.

Quick research greepeace total spending 2014: 80 million in 2014
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte... and currency conversion
Monsanto selling and administrative expenses 2.5 billion
http://www.monsanto.com/invest...

Greenpeace may well spreed FUD but so do Monsanto and Monsanto have a lot more money to do it.

Your instincts about the article smelling kind of skechy are almost certainly right. Yes, that's what your source says happened, but as you note, they don't back it up with anything. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that anti-GMO activist groups are, if anything, even less trustworthy than international megacorporations when it comes to spinning the truth, omitting important factors, or just making stuff up from whole cloth. They're up there with creationists and anti-vaxers when it comes to needing to follow up on the primary documents for every claim they make.

If an article quotes those activist groups and they phrase something in such a way as to "not exclude" what they want you to think but not to actually come out and say it, it's usually not a real thing. If it was, they'd be pounding the drum and saying it outright and stating the facts clearly. My guess is when you hear meaningless phrases like "Monsanto went after" instead of "Monsanto threatened/filed suit against" what they really mean is that an investigator went to the farmer and asked if they were saving unlicensed GMO seeds, didn't find evidence of a violation, and then closed the case.

From what I've actually been able to verify, actual actions against farmers are extremely rare. Only a handful have actually gone to court, and the cases I've followed up on by reading the court decisions have been obviously one-sided with the farmer obviously intentionally violating the rules. The fact that when they're asked for specific cases, their big figurehead "victim" is usually Percy Schmeiser (side note: This is Monsanto's web site summarizing the situation and they link to the relevant decisions, which should tell us something) is an indicator that there isn't much in the way of real collateral damage here.

I'm generally pretty quick to believe accusations against big corporations because they're very often true. Unfortunately, the anti-GMO lobby has done so much to burn my trust that I'd take a peek outside if they told me the sky was blue. Will Saletan at Slate has a good summary that just scratches the surface of the whole mess here.

The patent for the most important GMO trait (glyphosate tolerance) has already expired.

And that's why Monsanto has been quick to market with Roundup Ready v2.

http://www.monsanto.com/produc...

First, none of the crops or seeds they sell have a terminator gene activated so you can produce resistant offspring, it's just illegal to do so without paying Monsanto as long as they hold the patent. Second, patents eventually come to an end which means that people will be able to use this invention for themselves without paying Monsanto anything, which is actually happening this year for some of their products. So for their first generation soybeans, you can now freely keep and replant the seeds without any threat of legal recourse.

Also, there's no requirement that GMO crops be patented. See golden rice for a good example of a GMO food that was designed to save lives and has been given away to be used freely.

If you want patent-free GMO to be readily available, you can pay for the costs associated with developing and release it yourself. Otherwise you can fork over extra tax dollars so the government can fund whatever pet project I feel is a huge benefit to the world as well. Or we can just let some companies shoulder the risk and get their guaranteed monopoly for a while. Another benefit is that the company is going to have to keep developing new products to stay in business whereas the government has far less incentive to keep producing more GMO food after the first few rounds.

they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed)

If they are, they're not blocking anything, as Monsanto has never sold terminator seeds.

specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye)

If they are, they're not blocking everything, because all crops are being constantly bred for disease resistance

as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.

There has never been a lawsuit for accidental wind sprouting. The closest case was Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, in which Schmeiser bred roundup-ready seed, pretending to have had it been part of a wind-blow, but actually having purchased the seed before, and simply bred a new crop without paying for it:

Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.

Lots of luddites on slashdot right now. I thought I ought to correct the record.

Of course, you realise that the Terminator Seeds thing is effectively a myth - right:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsvi...

Of course, we're quite happy to eat effectively some of these kinds of plants (seedless grapes and seedless watermelon).

And of course if you were worried about some of the GM gene's getting into the "wild", this would be a good thing. Then again, you'd expect one to be more concerned about our traditionally GM'd crops (i.e., bred) inter breading with their "wild" relatives.

Yes, Monsanto developed the terminator gene technology.

They have never used it in their products.

Yes, Monsanto enforces their contract that prohibits seed saving by farmers. If farmers want to use seed saved from harvest for the next year's crop, they have to use some other source for their initial seed. Most US and European farmers were already buying seed every year before GMO seed became available. This was less common with soybeans, but the trend was there.

NPR report on the Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds.

The round-up ready soybean patent expires this year. I canøt find anything for the other products, because there are so many pages talking about the soy patent expiring.

Tell that to Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/produc...

No, that could never happen. Just like those Monsanto strains that can't pollinate other crops.

Monsanto has never sold seeds designed not to cross pollinate. They developed seeds with that capability, but were pressured into not selling them.

This way.

Laws.

You are not allowed to replant it, because of patent bullshit. Straight from the assholes themselves.

The patent on the gene for "Roundup-Ready" herbicide resistance expires in a few months.

So yes, it will be an interesting time to watch what happens.

Here's what Monsanto has to say about it (from the Monsanto website page regarding the expiring patent):

In addition to the trait patent, most Roundup Ready soybeans are protected by other forms of intellectual property, such as varietal patents. These variety patents will continue to be valid after (and usually long after) the Roundup Ready trait patent expires.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsvi...

Basically, what they're saying is that the expiring patent means jack-shit. If you want to save your Roundup Ready corn seeds after the patent expires, they're still gonna take your ass to court.

What makes you think the company that created Agent Orange and dioxin is going to abide by any sort of rules? Hell, man, the government is Monsanto's lawyer.

For one, I never said Monsanto has ever sued anyone over cross-pollination; that said, don't be fooled by Mansanto's own claim that they don't take legal action against farmers. They specifically state they've never sued over "trace amounts" and state that the courts have acknowledged that they've never once sued, or threatened to sue, an organic farm. This is a far cry from claiming it's never happened, which they simply can't do, because it has. And they won.

They have also sued, and continue to sue, for seed-reuse. That is, buying more seed than you'll use this year and using the excess next year, or harvesting and using seed produced by Mansanto-seeded crop. I can't fault them for suing farmers who harvest and replant after signing an agreement stating that they will not do this, but then I ask, how do they determine whether the seed was stores or harvested? Simply put, they can't, and the result is suing people for storing seed.

Remember, if it happens just once, you can no longer say it doesn't happen. It's doubly-bad for one's reputation to not only do something others will disapprove of, but then to slyly attempt to convince them that it never happened in the first place. Mansanto has done just this, and the fact that they're full of shit is a matter of public record, so yes, I'm going to call them out on it.

For one, I never said Monsanto has ever sued anyone over cross-pollination; that said, don't be fooled by Mansanto's own claim that they don't take legal action against farmers. They specifically state they've never sued over "trace amounts" and state that the courts have acknowledged that they've never once sued, or threatened to sue, an organic farm. This is a far cry from claiming it's never happened, which they simply can't do, because it has. And they won.

They have also sued, and continue to sue, for seed-reuse. That is, buying more seed than you'll use this year and using the excess next year, or harvesting and using seed produced by Mansanto-seeded crop. I can't fault them for suing farmers who harvest and replant after signing an agreement stating that they will not do this, but then I ask, how do they determine whether the seed was stores or harvested? Simply put, they can't, and the result is suing people for storing seed.

Remember, if it happens just once, you can no longer say it doesn't happen. It's doubly-bad for one's reputation to not only do something others will disapprove of, but then to slyly attempt to convince them that it never happened in the first place. Mansanto has done just this, and the fact that they're full of shit is a matter of public record, so yes, I'm going to call them out on it.

Are you serious about #1. And I'm not ONLY talking about cross field issues, but any Monsanto/GMO issues. You may find this site credible:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsvi...

Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it’s really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto’s favor.

And for #2 I'm very familiar with growing bananas in marginal conditions. I lived in Mobile Alabama, and while we can grow banana trees there, the winters often kill them back to the point where they nearly have to start over each year. Do-able but not efficient. But if they can alter the fruit to be more healthy they can alter the tree to be more drought and/or cold resistant.

How the hell did that get modded informative, that's blatantly false.

They planted Roundup-resistant plants

'They' here being farmers, do you have any idea how supply chains work?

all over while saying "the resistance will never spread to other plants" without actually bothering to check whether that was the case, as if they had never heard of plasmids.

Yes, your degree from Google University means you know more than all the scientists at Monsanto. And what the hell do plasmids have to do with anything?

Roundup-resistant weeds with the Monsanto gene in them were found IN THE NEXT FIELD BELONGING TO A DIFFERENT LANDOWNER four months after the first crops were planted

Man, if horizontal gene transfer happened that easily we'd be living in a very different world, however, that didn't happen. This is evolution 101 here; apply a strong selective pressure over a large area upon a fast reproducing species and you produce genetic shifts. If you knew anything about agriculture (you clearly don't) you would know that the first examples of herbicide resistant weeds emerged in the 70's, decades before GMOs. This is a problem systematic of agriculture, not one of GMOs. As for the Roundup resistant weeds, their mode of resistance is well understood, with mutations such as amplification of the EPSP synthase enzyme, or blocking of glyphosate translocation, or modification of the glyphosate binding site responsible, but never once has there been a single instance of the weeds uptaking the crop's genes. I'll eat my hat if you can find me a single example of the C4 EPSPS gene (the gene used in RR crops) being integrated into a weed's genome. Come on, prove me wrong, I'd love to hear about it. If Monsanto is so evil, and the hate so justified, the evidence of what you say should be abundant, and it shouldn't be hard to shut me up.

Since then, Monsanto have lied repeatedly about the spread of resistance

And here's Monsanto talking about it., Two seconds on Google is all it would have taken to find that. That news is all over the ag world, no one is covering it up, its been a topic of discussion for a long time, and if you paid attention to ag news or watched ag TV programs like on RDF-TV then you'd know that.

I really wish people who knew nothing about agriculture would stop going around saying what's what when they wouldn't know guanine from glufosinate.

Maybe I'm missing something but, but you appear to be asking what currently available GMO crops contain "entirely separate species". Ignore this if I misread.

There are only a few currently on-the-market GM crops, where GM refers to transgenic modification, not hybridization. Probably the most commonly known is the Roundup ready line of crops, including soy and corn, but I'm a little sketchy on the details. It appears to have something to do with the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Almost as commonly known are crops such as Bt corn and potatoes, which have a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , The SunUp papaya has a gene fragment from the papaya ringspot virus. Liberty Link corn, soy, etc., has a gene isolated from Streptomyces bacteria. Golden rice has been produced different ways, including genes from daffodil, bacteria, and corn.

Anyway, that's a partial list, in case you're interested. I don't suppose you are actually claiming that there is no practical difference between cross-breeding and transgenics.

Back up your crap with numbers, not stereotypes, or bugger off.

Yes, individual farmers can make higher profit margins by not giving all their money to Monsanto to purchase seeds / pesticides / herbicides. However, the total market share of organic products is small --- so, in industry aggregate, Monsanto and Pals make loads more money from smaller margins on larger sales.

From an Organic trade industry association hyping how big the organic industry is,
Total U.S. organic sales, including food and non-food products, were $28.682 billion in 2010
and represented ~4% of total food and beverage sales in 2010.

The other 96% percent of sales dollars go through the traditional Big Ag chain. From Monsanto's 2010 report, Monsanto's net sales were $10.5B, and ADM reported $68B in net sales --- so, just between these two corporations alone --- ~2.7x the entire organic industry's sales. And there are many others in the chain, making up the 96% of sales not going to organic produce.

I'd like proof that they lie.

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/roundup-pro-concentrate.aspx

The active ingredient, glyphosate, has favorable environmental characteristics such as low volatility and binds tightly to soil.

http://www.cdms.net/LDat/mp8CC006.pdf

Dissipation Soil field :Half life 2-174days

That's some range there. But I guess since it "binds tightly to soil", it will not leach into ground water. Oh wait, it does. Maybe it just washes out and does not "bind tightly to soil" as claimed, which explains that massive, massive range.

Monsanto lies to make money. Their ROE lifetime is 20 years, and damn the rest because patents expire.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/08/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-soil-damage

hmm, so maybe not that good for stuff in the soil....

Wrong agriculture business. This is antibiotic resistance. Monsanto is arguably causing herbicide and pesticide resistance, although such claims are stupid: they made the herbicides and pesticides, and they worked. It wasn't going to last forever if it was used widely, and if it wasn't used widely to make cheap foodstock, what's the bloody point?

They even took steps to limit that much. The terminator seed technology was partly intended to prevent contamination: if the plants can't breed, they're less likely to mix with wild species and contaminate them. Obviously they had a lot of financial interest in it, both because if resistance gets into the pest populations, that's going to make their product worthless. And in response to the controversy and accusations that it would screw over farmers, Monsanto never actually put terminator seeds on the market.

Anyway, pointing fingers is only so helpful, even at the agricultural entities that ARE driving antibiotic resistance. At this point, we know the looming disaster. It's not rocket science or even climate science either. This is high school biology. Businesses can be expected to faithfully act without any regard other than immediate profit. Ignorant patients will always find greedy doctors willing to give them antibiotics they don't need for diseases that aren't bacterial. Fixing the problem won't happen voulontarily. We need legislation to prevent milk from cows treated with antibiotics from being sold in supermarkets cheaper than untreated milk. Same with other livestock. It's an externalized cost: there's an advantage to it that needs to be taken away. We also need to strip the medical licenses of doctors who give out antibiotics for the cold. Either they're shockingly ignorant of the last 20 years of research and aren't fit to be doctors, or they're intentionally contributing to a real health hazard and should face criminal charges.

You are wrong. Here is monsanto's statement.

Yes the technology exists to make plants sterile, but the use of the Terminator Gene has never been sold or used by Monsanto.

Alright, I bit. And found the patent in question. It does also claim any further modification (i.e. accidentally cross-pollinated) varieties (item 0047). Exactly how it would hold up in court I think remains to be tested, but yeah, fuck Monsanto's patent trolling (the patent is granted to Seminis seeds, which is owned by Monsanto)

Farmers choose to buy and plant Monsanto because they get the same or higher yields with less work; nobody forces them to do that. Furthermore, when they buy Monsanto's seed, they aren't "forbidden" to grow their own seed. Rather, patent law forbids them to do anything at all with Monsanto's seeds, but Monsanto gives them a license to do one thing (plant the seeds) but not do another thing (grow new seeds).

As far as I can tell, Monsanto is exactly doing what plant variety patents are intended to let them do: they develop new varieties, make 20 years of profits from them, and then the new varieties fall into the public domain. There isn't even anything GMO specific to that.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx

Also, let's not forget that these crops are mostly planted by big agribusinesses, and they aren't going to be tricked or pushed by Monsanto. If you want to get upset about something, get upset about the perverse amount of subsidies we give to the agribusinesses.

If you look at the website of the World Food Prize org, you will find :-

The World Food Prize sincerely thanks the following sponsors for supporting its annual programs: ...
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation DuPont Pioneer John Deere Foundation
The Mathile Institute for the Advancement of Human Nutrition Monsanto DuPont Pioneer
Ruan Transportation Management Systems Claudia and Paul Schickler....

So, Monsanto is one of the sponsors of WFP. A pretty important one too, as shown by this link which used to exist on the Monsanto website.

The World Food Prize Foundation on Friday accepted a $5 million contribution from Monsanto Company to ensure the continuation of the annual World Food Prize International Symposium -- now known as the "Borlaug Dialogue." The funds support a renewed fundraising campaign to transform the historic Des Moines Public Library building into a public museum to honor Dr. Norman Borlaug and the work of the World Food Prize Laureates.

When you look up the WFP website , you will find that "The World Food Prize is sponsored by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan and is located in Des Moines, Iowa."

Not in itself damning, until you realise that :-

Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country

Monsanto has made substantial investments in Iowa

Monsanto actively lobbies to change laws in Iowa

I think its fair to say that Monsanto has a lot of influence in Iowa.

I question the integrity of this "prize".

Nonsense. The idea that Monsanto has a monopoly is flat out wrong.

There are several major crops where Monsanto has a lot of competition, and others where Monsanto doesn't even offer products. Corn, which is Monsanto's biggest product has a 40% market share.

In only soybeans could you say they have a monopoly. And the first generation patent that gives Monsanto the edge in this market expires in 2014.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx

> modifying plant DNA so that one year's crop cannot be used to plant next year's crop

Uh no, they are not doing that. What you describe is a GURT technology, which has never been commercialized, and it's highly doubtful that it ever will be.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

Right now, Monsanto's GM wheat is RoundUp resistant, but how long before it requires RoundUp or something else. Monsanto has been working on a terminator gene that would kill the plant if a chemical is not applied at regular intervals. So that gene, through cross-pollination, is spread to non-GM wheat. Followed by a shortage of the gene-therapy spray or chemical and famine becomes a very real possibility. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx - Paraphrase "Monsanto would never ever use this technology... unless it became profitable... we are using it now and not telling anyone."

Turns out, the patent expires soon. Monsanto seems to be pretty reasonable about it:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx

After patent expiration, you can use the old soybeans royalty free. Or you can choose the newer, higher-yield varieties they have constructed since (and that will themselves expire at some point).

Seems to me the patent system here is actually working as it should.

Patents expire. Less then 10 years left on this one.

Actually, it expires next year, in 2014. Citation: Round-up Ready patent expiration.

If he gets any cross pollination from other farmers using monsanto seeds, he'll get sued again. And he will lose. Farmers always lose these lawsuits where their fields got cross-pollinated by patented genes.

I frequently hear this claim, and I frequently hear the other side declare that it's bullshit. Neither side actually cites a court case. Does this actually happen, or not?

GIYF. That, and Monsanto puts a partial list of lawsuits on their own website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx which would be a good place to start from, for their side of the story. For the other side of the story, you can find farmers ranting about Monsanto pretty much everywhere on the internet.

The hang up comes when a farmer replants cross-pollinated seeds, and then intentionally roundup's the results so he has a crop of new 100% roundup-ready seeds to replant, even though he never bought seeds from monsanto to begin with. Farmers who just let the cross pollination go unchecked and never use roundup anyway are fine, monsanto would have to have probable cause (depending on who you ask) and test a LOT of seed to find the ones that are roundup-ready.

The RoundUp Ready patent expires in 2014. The RoundUp Ready product-line will be replaced in the marketplace by the Genuity RoundUp Ready 2 product-line.

IIRC, they got all kinds of flack from the farmers when they threatened to sell "terminator" seeds.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

Citation? How about looking at the crop yields from the Iowa farm my great-grandfather homesteaded. The citation is my brother's income tax return, he manages the farm now. Or the yields being produced by the tenants on my father-in-law's Minnesota farm. Next question?

How about some statistics instead of anecdotal experience? In order to show how GM crops improve yelds, Monsanto themselves provide statistics on their own web site; we can be certain that the ones they've chosen aren't biased against GM seeds. Still, for GM corn, they only tout a 5% average increase in 10 years in developed countries "except Australia" (however, in that case they don't quantify the negative yeld impact, who knows why).

For me, being completely ignorant about agriculture, hearing "GM seeds improve yelds a lot" is a kind of information. Hearing "GM seeds improved corn yelds in developed countries by about 0.5% per year, except in Australia where they had a negative impact over yelds", and reading that on the very web site of Monsanto, is a richer information.

Actually, Dow Chemical owns UCC since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company#Bhopal_disaster but thank you for the correction, I misremembered the acquisition of UCC, whose subsidiary UCIL ran the Bhopal plant.

Monsanto, however, is a global company with 21,000 employees in 404 facilities in 66 countries, not a US one; here is a list of worldwide facilities from their web site: http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/our-locations.aspx

Likewise, Caterpillar does it's manufacturing close to its customers in various countries: http://www.caterpillar.com/company/global-footprint

Case tractors are also manufactured outside the US in many instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_IH#Factory_locations ; most of the engines used in the US models are manufactured in Brazil.

General Electric, which manufactures most of the train locomotives used in the US, makes nearly 2/3rds of its money outside the US, and has reduced their US workforce by 1/5 from 2002 to 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?scp=2&sq=ge&st=cse

I'll point out that most steel beams used in large construction are manufactured in China and shipped over for use in the US, since the US no longer has the facilities to manufacture them; for example, most of the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge superstructure is from China: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-11/sf-bay-bridge-gets-5-300-ton-delivery-from-china.html

The other stuff is transient local infrastructure (why bring in concrete from another country, unless you are talking pre-stressed concrete girders, which, again, tend to get shipped from China).

So tell me again how the US is doing?

Wow! You're a moron.

there's billion sources...

A billion huh? And you couldn't even provide one? Anyway, to reply to the gist of your post:

1) I am most decidedly not a fan of Monsanto.

2) You're lying. Your quote is from this page and when not altered by you, reads:

In GM crops and foods derived from them, introduced proteins are usually present only in minute amounts.

This quote is talking about GM foods in a general (and even future) sense.

FYI the cleaning and planting in season 2 is an intentional act. The farmer that buys the Round Up Ready seed is well informed and actually signs an agreement not to clean and re-plant. The agreement actually requires practices to reduce cross-pollination. For example, in corn crops, detassling

The usual poorly informed Slashdot debate has focused on accidental cross-polination. That is not the issue. We can debate the efficacy of patents and other intellectual property protections in spurring innovation and I am not completely convinced either way. I know Round Up Ready is very effective but over used to the point of creating resistant weeds. But that doesn't change the issue at work here that Monsanto is targeting intentional conduct not accidental. Granted, accidental cross-pollination may occur.

Signed: A farmer's son.

FYI the cleaning and planting in season 2 is an intentional act. The farmer that buys the Round Up Ready seed is well informed and actually signs an agreement not to clean and re-plant. The agreement actually requires practices to reduce cross-pollination. For example, in corn crops, detassling

The usual poorly informed Slashdot debate has focused on accidental cross-polination. That is not the issue. We can debate the efficacy of patents and other intellectual property protections in spurring innovation and I am not completely convinced either way. I know Round Up Ready is very effective but over used to the point of creating resistant weeds. But that doesn't change the issue at work here that Monsanto is targeting intentional conduct not accidental. Granted, accidental cross-pollination may occur.

Signed: A farmer's son.

Fair enough - and I certainly support your skeptical point of view. One would be remiss to NOT fact check.

That said, I consider my point of view on Monsanto to be informed. You may or may not choose to agree - but there are certain points which are troubling for me.

To answer your quotes, I've tried to use neutral news - but I admit that some of these sources are biased.

That's amazing to me. BP fucks the ocean, and Haliburton makes money disappear for a war, and the guys who sell this [nature.com] are the evil ones.

Corporate evil is nothing new - my first exposure was the Bhopal disaster.
Concerning BT Cotton - well - that rosy success is turning out to be a washout. The Maharashta government has had to bailout the cotton industry, and studies are showing that BT Cotton is depleting the soil of minerals (Roundup chelates minerals, making them metabolically unavailable for some period of time).
http://digitaljournal.com/article/321958

Ah, that explains why they are selling the insecticide reducing Bt crops in the above link.

In fact Monsanto said themselves that BT cotton has failed in India for bollworm protection.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Bt+cotton+has+failed+admits+Monsanto/1/86939.html

And also the usage of pesticide in Indian BT cotton has returned to normal levels after the initial lowering.
http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Bt-Cotton-False-Hype-and-Failed-Promises-Final.pdf
(see section CONSUMPTION OF PESTICIDES IN VARIOUS STATES DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS 2005-06 to 2009-10 )
http://ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides.htm

How so? Let me guess, 'superweeds' and 'superpests'? Please, resistance breakdown and herbicide resistance are nothing new, are more cultivation issues than crop issues (particularly the resistant pests) and worst case scenario is you lose the benefits already provided.

Yes - those are problems, but problems that are solvable with traditional cultivation. My main concern with Roundup is the reduction in essential and rare minerals in foodcrop, thus requiring remediation and supplements. I'm concerned that there may be long-term effects in human and animal health.
http://www.agweb.com/assets/import/files/58P20-22.pdf

I also think that the most important research performed by Princeton's Dr. Huber deserves scientific evaluation. He is a true expert and has made some striking claims on the danger of Roundup-ready crops. Perhaps this is somewhat biased, but his resume is certainly impeccable.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1161030109000628
And an overview of Dr. Huber's presentation
http://www.greenpasture.org/fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-vitamin-d-vitamin-a/dr-huber-and-the-impact-of-glyphosate-in-the-food-chain/
And Monsanto's rebuttal:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/huber-pathogen-roundup-ready-crops.aspx

That must be why farmers willingly buy them, why farmers in developing countries wait in lines to get their bag of GE seed.

There are plenty of good GE seeds!! I think there are specific problems with some glyphosate-ready crops and neonicotinoid-treated seeds (which are being linked to CCD in bees). That said

As I understand it, the issue with the replanted/cleaned seeds is a matter of intentional breach of contract rather than one of patent infringement. When you purchase their seeds, you purchase a license with them that prohibits the replanting/cleaning of the seeds. So whether or not IP was infringed is essentially irrelevant to the stipulations of the contract itself.

Monsanto discusses the topic on their FAQ concerning Food Inc. http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/default.aspx

There's also a practical reason behind preventing the cleaning and replanting of seed. Since these seeds contain a pesticide (Bt derivative), a necessary step to maintaining the efficacy of the pesticide is planting a refuge (non-GM section) as part of the crop. If the whole crop expressed the pesticide genes, we could expect resistance to develop very quickly, but by adding in refuge areas the selective pressure decreases. The size of the refuge varies depending on the mix of proteins being expressed, and is determined by the EPA. These non-GM refuge seeds are sometimes mixed in with the GM ones at specific ratios. By cleaning/replanting the seeds, the ratio of GM to non-GM seeds changes, and the size of the refuge is no longer controlled. This creates a situation similar to the over-prescription of antibiotics that we're all familiar with; resistant pest strains will appear much more frequently. So there are reasons other than simple greed behind these contracts.

Disclaimer: I'm currently employed at Monsanto, but contracted through a third party. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, and my comments should not be interpreted as such.

I found this article from 1998 about Novartis and maize grown with antibiotic immunity, as well as this article on Monsanto Roundup Ready cottonseed, as well as this article on GMO safety directly from Monsanto which specifically states that they build in antibiotic resistance.

But the Monsanto patented crops are sterile

No, *you* don't know what you're talking about. Monsanto seed is not sterile. Read it for yourself, from their own website. They make it pretty clear "Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product."