Slashdot Mirror

Not all of them have been common sense.

It may be true that only 40% of the canola seed in Canada is intended to be Roundup ready, but according to this report on the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, virtually all canola seed in Canada is contaminated.

Also, if the guy notices the contamination in his field and sues Monsanto for damages, what is he supposed to do in the meantime? Just hope to win his lawsuit and plant no crops? Why shouldn't he harvest his own crop and use the seed? If Monsanto is negligent enough to let it loose, why should he suffer for it? Indeed, arguably he had to use his seed else he would have failed to mitigate his damages.

From what I've read, Schmeiser had previously used Roundup only on a test patch, but I'm not sure we know for sure. (Presumably it would be possible to find out if had bought Roundup. I don't know if that kind of investigation was done. The information available is a little sparse. Too bad there is no Groklaw for the Monsanto cases.)

this item on Schmeiser's site contains some information about the gradient I mentioned, but not in quite the form I remember, so I think I saw that somewhere else. The trouble is I read a lot on this several months ago.

According to this item on Percy Schmeiser's web site, new contamination has already taken place. And it isn't surprising. According to this article reporting the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, it is no longer possible to buy seed that is free of contamination.

According to this item on Percy Schmeiser's web site, new contamination has already taken place. And it isn't surprising. According to this article reporting the work of a University of Manitoba researcher, it is no longer possible to buy seed that is free of contamination.

but it doesnt stand a snowballs chance in court.
Whats really disturbing is that Monsanto vs Schmeiser actually has. Patents suck :(.

FWIW, Percy Schmeiser denies deliberately planting Monsanto seed, and states that Monsanto is lying outright about the percentage of his crops that were contaminated:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Monsanto%20Lying.htm

He said, she said?

Of course, Schmeiser disputes that claim on his own site, but he's hardly an impartial source. He claims that samples he had independently tested show less than 8% contamination except in one sample taken from the area where he first noticed the crop growing adjacent to the property of his neighbor that was growing the stuff. He also claims that the sample used in the trial was not clearly identifiable as his and was missing chaff unlike the material he had turned into the mill years before.

On the other hand, I would take anything off of junkscience.com with a huge grain of salt. The owner has a definite agenda and bias, and crank.net gives the site a low-level "cranky" rating instead of an "anti-crank" or even "fringe" rating.

So, GM food never harmed anybody?

What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.

Keep in mind two things. First, this case entirely derives from the fact that a GMO designed to resist excessive use of herbicides contamined a non-GMO crop. (I'm not going to even go into the merit of designed a food crop to resist the use of more of a chemical known to cause human health problems.) Second, biochem companies are right now testing GMOs that are designed to grow drugs -- crops that could also contaminate the human food supply.

The problem is not the technology. It's using the technology in an utterly irresponsible manner and then lobbying to cover up any problems that occur.

Not from me it won't. I was active trying to get people to pay attention to the threat of GM foods more than 5 years ago, but whole-heartedly support this technology, and have for years (this is rather old news).

Knowing many people in the "foodie" movement, and having heard organic famers describe their breeding programs, you'll find that most anti-GM activists will also support faster breeding, especially when it allows us to develop strains that are appropriate for local conditions and suitable for low-input, organic agriculture.

The anti-GM movement is not anti-science or anti-progress. It emerged out of serious concerns with corporate control of our food supply and the poor quality of the gene-splicing "science" used.

A big problem was found by Percy Schmeiser. He is one fine example of what happens when you get caught in Monsanto's lawyers cross-hairs. His crime? Monsanto's IP was in his field. No matter that they tresspassed to establish this, or that he didn't plant them, didn't want it, and viewed it as contamination of his crop... he lost his farm over this.

But the problem that made me cry foul was far more frightening than a Microsoft of agriculture wanting to control most of our food supply's IP, scary as that is. It's that you can't "undo". When you put a fish gene in a tomato, you can't take the fish gene back. If pollen escapes - if the plant is crossed with others in the field - you can't selectively remove that genetic material.

We could find a horrible allergy is introduced, a fatal toxin to some keystone critter, or a loss in yields. But once the open-pollinated strains are contaminated, how do you remove them? Go with all the commercially controlled hybrid varieties? hmm....

Contrast this to the approach described in the article. We know these genes to be quite safe, as people have been eating and growing them for a very long time. We're just accelerating breeding. It may not be 100% safe, but it's as safe as anything can be. AND we don't have to worry about corporate control of a basic resource.

When the topic of GM has come up on /. before, I have been surprised how easily, and I would say uncritically, people embrace the technology. Monsanto has the same ethics as Microsoft. They promise to end world hunger when all that matters is the bottom line.

When it tries to use proprietary chemicals to allow seeds to germinate, we should be appalled - the same way we are appalled at DRM. When they patent genes that were bred through generations of farmers work, it should be seen as Sun trying to hijack GPL code.

Anyhow, sorry for such a long post- the basic point being that no, most of us won't flip out and try to stop it if you call it gene-laundering :)

Well - you probably do have the right to sue.

Not only this - but your corn will have spread its pollen around the world and infected every feild of corn on the planet - feilds where the farmers were trying to grow NON GM MODDIFIED corn.

You can sue them too.

And they will lose just as Percy Schmeiser lost when Monsanto's GM modified rape contaminated his feilds.

You can read all about it here: Monsanto vs Schmeiser

One of the reasons we don't hear about Monsanto and Lockheed Martin is that they don't want us to hear about them.

Monsanto is the antithesis of the family farm. They genetically engineer seeds and plants. They sell chemicals that pollute the land. They browbeat farmers into using buying their products or paying in court.

Lockheed? They recieve oodles of taxpayer dollars to build bigger bombs. Approximately half the country thinks this is a bad idea, and furthermore, raising the public's awareness of Lockheed products can only lead to more investigations by journalists and more oversight by Congress. That's just not good for business.

These companies do spend tons of money on research, much of it directly taken from tax coffers. They don't want attention for the same reasons that anybody who is up to no good doesn't want attention.

I don't think a better golf game is a good reason to release a super weed (I personally don't like creepgrass).

The other difference is that Monsanto/Scott are litigious bastards, and shouldn't be trusted.

I wonder if they started engineering grass because it's easier for their PR department to sue golf course superintendents then farmers. Monsanto sued a Saskatchewan Canadian farmer and won, after his farm was contaminated with their Roundup-Ready canola seeds. He was fined $15/ac x 1030 ac, plus the value of his crop $105,000, plus $25,000 for punitive and exemplary damages.

creepgrass is considered a weed by a lot of people, this stuff is going to spread.

But then we'll all get sued by the AMA, the RIAA, and SCO for copyright infringement for illegally distributing the patented cure virus to complete strangers. They'll demand royalties every time a cell undergoes mitosis!

You may think you're exaggerating here, but you're not that far from the truth. Check out http://www.percyschmeiser.com/. This guy had his fields "infected" by genetically engineered crops carried in by windborne seeds. No big surprise there, we all knew this would happen, and it's not even the first example. But Monsanto sued him for using their patented gene and WON!!! For him to be in compliance of the law, he would have had to either pay Monsanto for a product he didn't want to use, or burn his crops. I think it's still in appeals, but the fact that any judge anywhere would ever side with Monsanto on this is really scary.

"In a key part of the ruling, the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but the judge says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed."

> The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.

What about people who claim it blew onto their property?

What's left, and what Schmeiser is appealing, is a dubious interpretation that allows Monsanto to claim patent infringement.

There's a really good article on Schmeiser's site that looks at the logic of this interpretation, and how the Supreme Court should view it.

It raises a lot of questions about the feasibility of patent-protection for GMOs, without being wildly alarmist or OTT.

Percy Schmeiser's web site. Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Since he uses his own crops for seeds, and Monsanto's GM seeds are patented, Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and that he must pay their Technology Fee.

You are surrounded by lawyers. Resistance is futile.

From the website, which you obviously haven't read: "In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB." That's not "98%," not even close, and an uneven distribution like that certainly could be the result of contamination or drift. And there are lots of articles out there referring to the problems with contaminated seed.

The thing is not so much that the court chose to believe that Schmeiser was lying (see here to find out exactly what he was convicted of and what he wasn't); they believed Monsanto over him, for some cases, which is hardly an unexpected outcome. In any case, he wasn't convicted of "brownbagging," he was convicted of having Monsanto's genes on his land and not telling them about it and paying up for it. The former is explainable because he didn't know; the latter is just rank blackmail.

Go read his website. He didn't know it was "Monsanto's seed," he never bought seed from Monsanto (preferring to breed his own for the last half-century or so, and he certainly didn't steal anything from Monsanto. In fact, he only found out about the cross-polination when he was trying to eliminate "volunteer" canola growing where he didn't want it and used Roundup.

Experts in the subject already insist that it's virtually if not utterly impossible to find canola, corn, and soybean seed without traces of (patented) genetically-modified genes in them. Monsanto, however, is the big offender, in that it ruthlessly goes after people who wind up with "their" proprietary genes in crops. It's also totally possible to find ultra-hybridized varieties of seed containing more than one company's proprietary genes. That comes from natural cross-polination, and other forms of non-crossbreeding contamination, not theft.

All of which just blatantly shows why this Supreme Court decision is a good idea, and why Mr. Schmeiser should get Monsanto to pay through the nose for wrecking his organic hybrid canola variant with their genetically modified strain. I wonder if this court case will help?

If someone has successfully patented a living organism, then the whole patent system needs to be revisited.

Sadly, patenting of living organisms is very old news. It's been done over and over in respect of certain crops. Yes indeed, folks, the very food that we eat is subject to patent and royalties.

To see a fine example of one farmer who has been and is currently being stomped by a large multinational (Monsanto) over this issue, go here

circumstances as you described. The farmer has his own web site now.

What happens when Monsanto sends you a cease-and-desist for growing corn you never planted, or never wanted? What realistic recourse do you have when a multi-billion dollar company with close political connections clamps down on you for violating IP laws? See Napster for an example, all they did was tell us where to get the songs.

Or just see what happens when Monsanto sends you a cease-and-desist for growing corn you never planted.

The real problems are in steel tarriffs and agricultural subsidies, that a nation that touts free trade (and the EU is just as bad here) resorts to protectionism and barely-disguised mercantilism at the first sign of trouble. Trouble's when you need your principles the most, not the least.

Sigh...

This has been going on for too long in the USA and the reason is simple. Most voters in the US don't give a rats ass. Two recent situations come to mind.

The whole genetically modified foodstuff debacle. The problem is that the US has granted patents on GM strains of common foodstuffs. Then when GM strains pollute natural crops with patented genes, farmers get sued into oblivion. Then, when third world countries turn down "donations" of GM food , US aid officials criticize them. What everyone seemed to miss (unsurprisingly) is that if Zimbabwe accepted the GM maize and then their local crops "somehow" became polluted with patented GM strains, they would soon be in a position where they would have to pay IP lawyers and US corporations to enable their people to eat locally produced food.

The other issue is protectionism. I won't even touch the steel issue. It reeks too badly. Instead, let's consider the current softwood lumber dispute with Canada. (if you say "What dispute?" my point is made) The protectionism in this dispute is almost as rampant as the corruption. The bottom line being that a select group of southern lumber barons profit while average Americans pay $3000 more for new housing. Oh, don't forget the 50,000 Canadians who were put out of work. The fact that the WTO will eventually overturn this does not negate the impact it has on profits, costs and jobs in the short term. If this is how we treat our closest ally, it's no wonder our enemies hate us.

Look at the big picture, people.

Sorry, looking at the big picture is simply too difficult for most Americans. It requires critical thinking and the ability to look at our own behaviour objectively. Point being, as long as Joe Sixpack has a job and Monday Night Football, most Americans just don't care.

The "guy in Canada" is named Percy Schmeiser, and he's still in court on appeal, after getting squashed by Montsanto the first time. Read about it here [percyschmeiser.com]

Since I remembered the lawsuit by Monsanto, I entered into Google:

farmer sued genetically corn patented

And these articles came forth:

The farmer's page
Article"
Another
Another
Tale of the Absurd
Monsano wins
Commentary
and on...
and on...
Comment
Good ol' Mother Jones

Y'all see, there is a damned good chance that such corn will contaminate the other crops, and then Monsanto or whomever will own their souls. Or GNP, whatever works.

I'm surprised that the Canadian case isn't common knowledge. Then again, it wasn't exactly Evening News material for the U.S. No network news department head wants to seem "liberal" nowadays, which translates to "damned few stories critical of corporations" (balance), which of course is not connected to trying to please conservative corporate owners who have become quite.... proactive in their news departments of late.

The submitter of the item is correct in identifying IP lawsuit threats as an important datum in the decision to decline the food, even if the article cited doesn't make a point of it. An informed person would already know about the enormous lawsuit potential, and add that to the stack.

One other point regarding many patented "wheat products" - as a seed it is effectively infertile... any crop from it used as seed will never germinate, and if that cross-fertilises with an exising native strain, blammo!

I doubt this is the case with most GM strains. The case of Percy Schmeiser shows that a very common variety of GM canola--Monsanto's Roundup Ready--will produce fertile seeds.

Monsanto requires farmers who plant Roundup Ready not to save seed from their crops for planting next year. That pretty much says that the seeds will be fertile--otherwise the requirement doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Schmeiser was sued for patent infringment by Monsanto--though he never used any Monsanto seed, his canola crop was cross-pollinated or otherwise contaminated by Roundup Ready. According to Monsanto, Schmeiser's 1997 crop contained Roundup Ready plants. He then saved the seed from that crop and illegally planted the seed in 1998, producing another year of GM canola plants. Monsanto's own accusation says that their GM product will produce viable seeds. Of course, if you use them, blammo! You've violated the terms of your license!

Schmeiser contends that his crop was cross-pollinated by Roundup Ready (Monsanto disputes this), which suggests that a cross-pollinated variety can produce good seed also.

If so, slashdotters should apply for the patent.
It's not either (export rights)/or (IP rights). They _will_ lose the ability to export crops to Europe if their crops are contaminated, unless the EU changes it's policy. Also, they should get an undertaking from certain biotech companies to avoid situations like this.

And for anyone who thinks this doesn't happen in real life, take a look at this. Mr. Schmeiser had just exactly this situation happen on his farm and he's been sued by Monsanto and has to pay heavy penalties.

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.

First off, Stevia is about 40 times sweeter than sugar but it can't be called a sweetener. It can be called a dietary supplement. You can buy the powder in health food stores. So a good way to "supplement" your iced tea for instance:

3 tea bags. 1/8 lemon squeezed, 1/4 tsp stevia, 1 tsp sugar, 4 oz lemon juice. Makes 2 litres (or 2 quarts - either US or Imperial measure) Serve over ice (fill the glass). This eliminates 2 tablespoons of sugar and tastes better.

--------------

Monsanto is also heavily into genetically modifed foods such as Canola. I urge everyone reading this to demand certified canola products such as margarine which do not contain any genetially modified products . The problem with this idea is that the genetically modified canola currently planted is spreading these genes throughout the natural canola crops. Futhermore the genticially modified plant cannot be killed as easily because (you guessed it) the specific gene that was introduced was designed to make it hard to kill with normal herbicides like Roundup.

Please read the plight of this Saskatchewan farmer who has now been ordered by the court to pay damages because his seed got contaminated.

Surprise surprise, plants naturally try to spread their genes all over the place as every hay fever sufferer knows. But the ignorant Saskatchewan judge who ruled in this matter clearly doesn't know all that much about plant biology.

It is sad that the great unwashed public knows so little about this threat. But the introduction of genetically modifed genes affects and threatens each and every one of us because _NO_ONE_ can predict the effect a new gene will have in the wild.

The ONLY way to fight that I can think of is to make the message loud and clear: BOYCOTT MONSANTO!!

It's under appeal, but doesn't look good. The GM Canola apparently spreads like a weed and is growing everywhere. And once it hits your property, Monsanto claims the right to rip up your crop if you don't pay them for a patent license. The best general overview I've seen is the 169k pdf file linked from here.

If the Scientific American article is correct, it looks like US patent law is (for once) less screwed up than at least part of the rest of the world's.

It's under appeal, but doesn't look good. The GM Canola apparently spreads like a weed and is growing everywhere. And once it hits your property, Monsanto claims the right to rip up your crop if you don't pay them for a patent license. The best general overview I've seen is the 169k pdf file linked from here.

If the Scientific American article is correct, it looks like US patent law is (for once) less screwed up than at least part of the rest of the world's.

I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".

I normally don't bother feeding the trolls (even with genetically-modified foods), but here I'll make an exception.

Ever hear of Monsanto?

They're a corporate giant thats a big player in the GM field. Based on their track record, I wouldn't trust them to provide food for my dog or cat...never mind for my own consumption.

Here are a few lowlights:

Monsanto recently sued canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement. The reason? His neighbour had been sowing Monsanto GM canola seed and some of the seed blew onto his property.

The Washington Post recently published this article detailing how for decades Monsanto dumped PCBs into streams in a small Alabama town despite having studies from the '60s describing the damage that was being done.

Monsanto is the parent company of Nutrasweet, one of the nastiest substances approved for human consumption.

Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. Terminator involves producing seeds that grow sterile plants, requiring the farmer to aquire new seeds from the company every growing season. It shouldn't take much imagination to realise that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.

Is this a company you would trust and whose products you want to be putting in your mouth?

Maybe next time you see people waving signs that that say "NO FRANKENFOODS", you might ask why before pointing the finger and screaming "Conspiracy nut!"

With other technologies, there's an element of trust involved. Break the trust and you will get flak every time you try to introduce something new...good or bad. Have the individuals making these sorts of decisions shown themselves to be responsible, looking out for our best interests? Here's your answer: After approving Nutrasweet for use in carbonated beverages, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr left his post and went to work for Nutrasweet's PR division.

Btw, here's an extremely biased link (the farmer in question), so read at your own risk: monsanto vs farmer

Slashdot had a link to a story on the Percy Schmeiser case a long time ago. It may also be worth checking out this site on his continuing conflict with Monsanto; whois records indicate it's run by a relative of Percy, and it seems rather thorough.

Monsanto is nasty corporation that fights dirty and wants to control everything it touches. It's Microsoft crossed with tobacco companies. Monsanto was one of the companies that produced the Agent Orange defoliant for the US military during 'Nam, and currently produces Roundup and Roundup Ultra. The latter is being indiscriminately dumped on various locations around Colombia as part of the US War on (Some) Drugs. This doesn't even get into Monsanto's legal and technical games with genetics.

Monsanto is also a candidate for being "first up against the wall" when "the revolution" comes. Whatever that turns out to be, it can only mean good things for life on Earth to evolve and exist outside of manipulation for profit.

It was actually in Canada, and Monsanto won. The webpage for his side of the story, the webpage for the Monsanto's side.

Who's right? From these two sites, I'm not really sure.

It's going on right now. Worse yet, it's international, so whoever among you out there is paranoid that corporations are trying to control the world, well, you're right.