Slashdot Mirror
300k Organic Farmers To Sue Monsanto For Seed Patent Claims
microphage writes "Monsanto went after hundreds of farmers for infringing on their patented seed after audits revealed that their farms had contained their product — as a result of routine pollination by animals and acts of nature. Unable to afford a proper defense, competing small farms have been bought out by the company in droves. As a result, Monsanto saw their profits increase by the hundreds of millions over the last few years as a result. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto tackled 144 organic farms with lawsuits and investigated roughly 500 plantations annually during that span with a so-called 'seed police.'"
A lot of their claims are actually legitimate. A lot of cheap-ass farmers will buy secondhand Monsanto seed from cleaners who take second generation seed from Monsanto crops (sold by other cheap-ass farmers) and sell them at a fraction of Monsanto's price. They're essentially benefiting from all of Monsanto's research and development without paying them a dime.
And I know it's politically-incorrect to bad-mouth the noble American farmer, but I grew up working on farms--and a more cheap-ass, money-grubbing group of people you would be hard-pressed to find. The average farmer I grew up with would climb over his dead mother to save $1. They paid in cash to avoid taxes and unemployment insurance, hired illegals if they could get them (at about half what they paid locals), used all kinds of cheap tricks to inflate their yields, outright lied to the government to up their subsidies, etc. I have no doubt most of the farmers I knew wouldn't have hesitated to use secondhand Monsanto seed if they could have gotten it by hook or crook for even slightly cheaper (this was back before genetic engineering became so big, so it wasn't such an issue back then).
Yes, I have no doubt that some organic farmers are being caught up unfairly in the dragnet. But I also can't blame Monsanto for having these much-maligned "seed police," because there are plenty of farmers out there who would gladly fuck them if they could. Sorry if that complicates the "Noble Farmer vs. Evil Corporation" black-and-white narrative.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So what you're telling me is, all I have to do is develop an easily identifiable genetic strain of a common farm plant, copyright it, then let it pollinate whatever and wherever it can, and then I can sue EVERYONE? Forever?
Time to start reading up on genetic engineering!
Or did they buy the cheapest seed they could find and it just happened to be monsanto tainted seed.
I dont know what all the features are. I suspect one of them is that it can withstand RoundUp. If
the farmer buys some Monsanto tainted seed and then does not use RoundUp, should he still have
to pay the Monsanto Tax?
300,000 plaintiffs... Monsanto has made a lot of enemies with their tactics. He who lives with the lawsuit...
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
Monsanto pwns US farms, good for them, their corporate-welfare, their faux-capitalism, their ability to write laws and get them passed.
I wish the FU-politicians we elect could do as much for US as Monsanto, ADM .... Our congress get a lot done for everyone, but US folks.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I wouldn't mind GMO's if they did something useful like put Viagra in my corn or wheat grains.
As European i still can't understand why your government courage's using of gene-manipulated seeds and actually spreading of Monsantos seeds to nature should be prevented growing that only inside ( i know that is absurd).
This is also something what especially poorest people in south-American suffers most.
true story.
So....barring that the geneticly modified seeds can't produce seeds themselfs, Couldn't famers sell the seeds from the plants THEY raised and that is why everyone seems to have them? And wouldn't nature naturally take genetic materials from one plant and give it to another of the same plant...ie...pollination?
Just really confuesd where the line is. I thought genetics could not be copyrightable/patentable???
Nice try, paid Monsanto astroturfer.
dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51059-biodiversity-up-for-grabs.html?tmpl=component&print=1
Here's a sample of their 'innovation'. Patenting traditional varieties of naturally occurring seeds in other countries.
They bent the law to allow these patents, and this is where we are today! We need to petition our congresspeople to BAN all patents on living organisms!
It's frightening that genetically-engineered crops have become so prevalent as to contaminate small-scale organic farms. The intellectual property arguments are obvious, but more concerning is the health risks. Compared with thousands of years of human agricultural co-evolution, these modifications are nowhere near as thoroughly-tested. Food crops nowadays are even modified to produce their own pesticides! There are likely very consequential side-effects lurking that will only appear generations later. Organic farmers, the ones that don't cheat, are doing us all a service by maintaining pure strains of our most important crops. Surely everyone should want to support this and protect them against contamination.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I don't know rt.com, but it seems to tend toward the sensationalistic side.
For example, my 1 minute of browsing the site took me to the story "FBI might shutdown the internet on March 8", ( http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-internet-server-servers-409/)
Maybe we should all be more worried about the internet disappearing than Monsanto's evil deeds.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
Monsanto should be the ones who have to pay those farmers for contaminating their fields.
But of course we're talking about the USA, where justice is but a distant memory and bribery is now known as lobbying.
Here's an article from Mercola that explains a lot of things that Mansanto does. It is truely a very evil company. Worst company of 2011
That if any pollen from monsanto crops were to stray onto my property, that is a form of industrial pollution. It's worse for my farm than radioactive fallout.
The damages should be in the millions, as now every grain of pollen must be removed. It's no different than if some asshole is crop dusting with toxic chemicals, and the toxins blow all over your land, and render your crops unusable. The soil needs to be dug up to a minimum 3 feet, hauled away, stored indefinetely, and replaced with arable soil.
It has altered the biological nature of the crops in an unnatural way -- it is a toxic by-product of Monsanto's business. An organic farm would be irrepairably ruined by such an act.
It should be assumed that farmers did not illicitly buy Monsanto seed - as we have an assumption of innocence. It should be assumed that Monsanto knows, that absent extreme measures, there will be cross pollination and contamination of neighbouring farms. They should be liable for this widespread damage.
As long as Monsanto is picking up the tab, I'm fine with them winning lawsuits in the cases where it can be shown the farmer intentionally sowed their seed without "consent".
The first post is a troll. No organic farmer is going to buy Monsanto tainted seed. The tainted seed ruins organic crops. You cannot sell your crop as organic if its contaminated with Monsanto gene. The farms get contaminated by Monsanto crops due to direct seed drift, cross pollination, bees etc. Monsanto knows this so they simply trespass on farmlands and steal samples. Then they sue the farmer out of business.
For all those who think that because they can't see the problems with GMO there's nothing to worry about, this is one of the most important things to grasp.
Millennia of co-evolution is why all those soft-headed hippies are so keen on "whoa, man, natural". It's extremely thorough testing of interoperability. Not only that, it's continued refinement, of both plants and humans, so that the co-evolved plants approach ideal foods for the co-evolved humans. Ironically, rather a sophisticated scientific concept that these hippies grokked out intuitively.
It's not necessarily Luddite or anti-technology to be opposed to GMO and other "scientific" advances in food. Opposition may be based on a deeper understanding of how these systems operate.
The contempt that GMO advocates have for their opposition is embarrassingly hypocritical. It's a special kind of ignorance that leads one to believe that a lack of seeing problems is the same thing as an actual absence of problems. Folks, these are complex systems.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
It's frightening that genetically-engineered crops have become so prevalent as to contaminate small-scale organic farms.
Genetically engineered crops have been around since the days of Mendel.
Compared with thousands of years of human agricultural co-evolution, these modifications are nowhere near as thoroughly-tested.
They rather are. Have people eaten them? Yes. About all the testing that has been done for the vast majority of humanity's lifespan.
There are likely very consequential side-effects lurking that will only appear generations later.
No, there aren't.
Organic farmers, the ones that don't cheat, are doing us all a service by maintaining pure strains of our most important crops.
Pure strains? Now there's a risk. One that genetically modified crops share, but so does anyone whining about pure strains. Genetic diversity is a good thing, unless you like being left with a single type of banana and a bunch of moldy potatos.
FTFA:
Last year, 270,000 organic farmers from around 60 family farms tried to take Monsanto to court over issues pertaining to a genetically-modified seed masterminded by the corporation.
I don't know how many crops these folks can grow on a farm with that many farmers taking up so much room.
Just dont try to eat it.
Um, ok. The uber-parent's article is hostile to GMO and Monsanto, and offers no useful concrete information; it's not a news story and /. shouldn't have posted it. What I'd like to know are the parties to the case and the case number, which would enable someone to view the court documents on PACER; actual court documents from PACER would be even more useful.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
For thousand of years you could reuse your own seed. I see n othing in the copyright law which would forbid you to do that, as long as you do not redistribute the result as seed to plant. Forbidding reusing seed for their own usage THAT is what is contestable.
Yes, yes, and..... Wait for it....
YES.
Citate this.
No brain, no pain.
If my farm's product is supposed to be organic, wholly natural agricultural products, imagine the damages resulting from finding out that said farm is actually producing genetically modified produce. Why, that could destroy the whole farm, not just the current crop.
Countersue. Monsanto's product was not adequately controlled and got out of control. Why, there might even be some (extremely major) criminal liability on Montsanto's part.
IANAL.
A lot of the cases of infringement were inadvertent and undesired. Monsanto didn't care, sued, won, took the farms.
Some states should be suing Monsanto as their patented genetic materials are now weeds or in weeds.
http://westernfarmpress.com/management/roundup-ready-canola-resistant-weed
First Wild Canola Plants With Modified Genes Found in United States
http://newswire.uark.edu/Article.aspx?id=14453
Weeds acquire genes from engineered crops
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/08/transgenenic-weed-doubles-its.html
The problem with their seeds is that they grow too well, and as some other here have said, those seeds are often invasive. When we are talking about hundred of acres of crops you can't expect a farmer to remove those seeds that have taken hold in the middle of their other crops. Yes there are SOME who have no regard for the patents and grow anyways, but that is only a select few. Yes those who do should be held accountable, but those who have these invasive breeds randomly growing should not be held accountablt if they are not reselling.
I think what a lot of people are unaware of is the fact that the majority of the farmers who are now caught up in legal battles have had no intention of growing or selling the crops. Many farmers have had no means of paying these fees and have been devastated by the ruthlessness of Monsanto. The iron fist of these huge companies are causing some family farms to close and others to go bankrupt.
I hope the judicial system makes a clear distictin between those farmers who are intentionally growing/reselling and those farmers who are simply dealing with a seed that was designed so well that it simply an invasive species.
My question now is what rights do they have on the breed(s) if they naturally are cross breed with local wild or existing strains. If this does occur do the farmers then have the right to grow those hybrids?
Just doing a casual bit of research into this topic, and Monsanto seems to be the dominant force in the farming seed market and has faced lots of scrutiny over anti-competitive practices, and is currently under investigation by the DOJ.
A large portion of a farmers annual budget goes towards seed purchasing. Traditionally, farmers would save a portion of their harvest as seed for their next crop (I have no citation for this, but have heard this number is traditionally around 25-30%). Monsanto forces its buyers to sign an agreement to not reuse any of their seed from harvesting, and must buy entirely new seed each year. Traditional farmers using their own seed are having trouble with neighboring farmers GE strains infecting their own through cross pollenization, resulting in their being forced by Monsanto to purchase entirely new seed or face lawsuit, etc.
Vanity fair has a good article about the history of the company, their current influence on the farming economy and some of their more questionable practices.
Surely the correct thing to do when discovering an infestation of GM crops is to call the police, have Monsanto charged with criminal damage and then torch the entire field before finally sending Monsanto the bill for the entire crop?
If this is the case, could an organic farmer sue Monsanto for cross pollination of their crops? Since there's genetic markers it's easy to prove they've infected their crops.
My neighbor's dog come into my yard and damage my yard...my neighbor has to pay for restitution
Mosanto pollen come to my yard and modify/damage my plant and its output...Mosanto has to pay for restitution, No ?
Or should it that i have to pay Mosanto for the opportunity of getting my plant screwed up without asking for it ?
Logical legal and patent system please.....please
.
There's no settlement nor judgement big enough to counter the evil that is Monsanto.
"Organic" refers to growing techniques. "Non-GMO" refers to the history of the genes in the seed. They are unrelated, though GMO may more easily allow the "organic" tag. Hence why many things list both "organic" and "non-GMO".
Learn to love Alaska
I will attest to my rather, lacking knowledge when it comes to legislation and what is deemed proper or not. So I will not pretend to be all knowing when it comes to claiming either side is correct from the laws standpoint. But what I will argue is this; Monsanto is a prime example of just how powerful a company can be when they have enough money. Monsanto is a prime example of how one can use the law to further gain profits in the long run. When you are a farmer and you have to strip an entire field just because a few seeds got in, that is just wrong. When the seeds themselves have an ability to ruin entire crops due to their genetically induced shelf-life (i.e. they are forced to only last a few generations), that seems quite wrong. When you can lose all that you have because the wind had managed to get pass the nets and fall into your field, while a Monsanto employee drives pass and checks if you are using one of their seeds, that is wrong. There is no moral high-ground for Monsanto, they gave that up when they ruthlessly bankrupted and destroyed countless lives for a product that is supposedly meant to help feed the world (which I end up seeing as ironic).
It was mentioned earlier RT seems a bit fringe. Certainly a class action of this size would be on some mainstream news sites, but some sniffing on google turns up other small sites quoting RT.
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
when a company can sue a farmer for growing crops. I don't care how, where, when and why.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
If Monsanto pollen winds up on my farm due to nature, I'm well within my rights to use it to develop my own strain with all of the Monsanto characteristics. They have the option to grow indoors and keep their pollen to themselves.
1) At what percentage of GMO seed is Monsanto suing? If it's 5% it's probably contamination they should definitely not be suing, but if it's 95% than that's probably deliberate contamination.
2) How should their business model work? I find the idea of patented lifeforms and violation of first sale doctrine to both be repulsive. But if you're in the business of developing GMO crops how else can you fund your research?
I stole this Sig
Forget the whole GMO debate, but how is it even possible that a multi-billion dollar company can threaten to sue a small farmer and then force them to sell out to them when the farmer cannot mount a proper defense. Couldn't you just create a well funded company that would identify small farms and threaten to sue them for anything, forcing them to sell out to you for lower that fair market prices as a part of a settlement? How does that not fall under some Organized Crime law?
Linux O Muerte!
after finding a copy of your virus on their system, which they did not put there, and then winning.
1. Genetically modify common cold virus and patent modifications.
2. Spread cold!
3. Sue EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4. Profit!
You did it! You found the missing step!
Deleted
No, really.
No brain, no pain.
I'm more interested in the Inorganic farms that are implied by all the talk of organic farms. What do these inorganic farms grow?
Anyone who works or worked for Monsanto, needs to be killed across the board.
Thank you for the reasoned, well-thought-out response.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
As the argument goes, everything is ok until NIMBY. So has Monsanto gotten a taste of its own medicine?
These organic farmers could certainly combine resources to patent a GMO seed which would end up on growing unexpectedly and unlicensed to Monsanto. Shame Monsanto would need to be sued.
Sorry but a lot of these comments are way off base. Neither first-sale nor licensing really applies here in the same sense as you are used to in debating DRM. Monsanto seed is sold to farmers under strict agreement with the farmer. If I hold back some of my canola and replant it when I've promised Monsanto in a written contract (signed and dated) that I wouldn't, then I'm definitely liable. So-called bin-run seeding is expressly forbidden in the contracts. For this reason, even though roundup-ready soybeans are going to be off patent this year, farmers really won't be able to start growing and multiplying seed outside of a Monsanto contract for another year or so, once the existing contracts run out. Without a patent for something fancy, it's pretty hard to convince farmers to pay a premium and sign a contract for seed, which is why as patents expire, these contracts end up disappearing too. But to get around this income problem, seed companies are getting into hybrid seed production (as opposed to open pollination) which means that traits disappear from the crop after a couple of generations, so buying new seed is ensured. And to be fair the market is driving this because the hybrid traits are traits that farmers and food processors want. Healthy oil content, disease resistance, shorter crops (not as tall), etc.
Anyway, the famous case a few years ago over roundup ready canola was essentially a contract dispute (besides the patent issue). The farmer kept back some of the crop and replanted it the next year, but claimed it was just natural genetic drift, etc. However he violated his contract with Monsanto and the courts sided with Monsanto.
SEC. 2105. 7 U.S.C. 6504 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION. To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this title, an agricultural product shall -- (1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided in this title; (2) except as otherwise provided in this title and excluding livestock, not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products; and (3) be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and handler of such product and the certifying agent.
Nothing in there about being non-GMO, so despite your authoritative quote from Wikipedia, the "organic" label most certainly CAN be assigned to food grown using genetically modified seeds.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Monsanto is EVIL. The wrongness of what they are doing is obvious. I am ashamed that the law allows Monsanto to get away with this.
I recall a story of Monsanto getting caught planting their seeds in unlicensed farmers' fields at night and then shutting down the farmer when the plants were found. I couldn't find a good source for this particular point in my quick Googling, but the comments on this article talk about it: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/monsanto-illegally-plants-gm-corn-in-india/ . Additionally, Monsanto has been caught doing a bunch of other dirty business practices. Google "Monsanto Dirty" for a quick peak. (I'm not doing proper research, I know, but its past 5)
That's what I don't get. Why isn't Monsanto spewing nuisance out into everybody's air? It's like they're sending little lawsuits out into the air and if they land on your property you are either obligated to clean them up or pay Monsanto. Isn't that what a fucking nuisance is.
You assume all farmers selling their produce as "organic" are ethical.
Considering the label is about as informative as "fat free ice", I wouldn't make that assumption
what year is this?
http://www.dirtandseeds.com/farmers-sue-monsanto-over-genetically-modified-seed-fight-the-corporate-takeover-of-america-read-this/
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
If they can get away with that kind of an argument in court, surely someone could just as easily sue Monsanto "for the contamination of previously organic genetically unaltered crops by gross neglect in preventing it from getting loose".
"270,000 organic farmers from around 60 family farms" Thats 4,500 farmers per family. Must be keeping busy on those cold winter nights.
Not to be a douch but the US Organic certification states that synthetic chemicals cannot be used (with exceptions). There is no part of the certification that says GMO cannot be used. It only deals w/ chemicals and handling techniques. You can in fact be "organic" with GMO food.
Reference:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/07C94.txt
So can a man patent his sperm and sue any woman that gets pregnant from it because it was the terms of use were not agreed upon?
Genetic Modification is useless unless you also use a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto called Round Up. The modification makes the seed resistant to Round Up, so you can apply Round Up to kill the non-resistant weeds without killing your crop, thereby increasing the yield. Round Up is a synthetic chemical, so your crop would not be organic if you use it.
I once had a signature.
750 million USD for plaintiffs' legal team; 300,000 "$50 off your next Monsanto GM seed purchase!" coupons for the organic farmers who don't grow GM crops in the first place.
Al Jazeera will probably pick it up, I'm sure the BBC will too. USAian networks don't seem as interested in this sort of thing, except for Comedy Central.
I hear that Monsanto's "seed police" are usually heavily built ex-military types driving black SUVs with tinted windows and hired to be as intimidating as possible.
I'm always a pretty critical thinker and always question the source, but based on everything I've seen and read on this topic this seems to be the real deal. Monsanto is a company with the ethics of Enron and the reach of Exxon. They've got to be stopped. Period.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
this is easily as important as PIPA/SOPA/ACTA - slashdot, craigslist, reddit and the rest - you got your splash pages ready i hope?
This summary is absolute bullshit. There's only 60 farmers in the lawsuit! The rest of the people are members of the plaintiff organizations! That 300,000 number is a flat out lie. What is wrong with doing a little fact checking?
It's amazing to me that current science fails to appreciate the power of nature to overcome our tweaking and fiddling.
It's amazing to me that you believe that's the view of scientists....
If I'd had my livelyhood destroyed by Monsanto over some intellectual property suit I'd have done everything in my power to hunt down and kill the CEO. No lawyers, none of the CEO's family, just the CEO.
It's almost the only "voice" I have left.
Tainted? Contaminated? Nice use of weasel words. So, why would Monsanto want to waste time suing people who don't buy their product? What would be then end goal? That would be like a Tyson Chicken suing vegetarians. There'd be no point. Seriously, do you even think about this? When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it. It's a big difference, one that anti-GMO groupstry to avoid mentioning mentioning....cause, you know, being misleading is the best way to make a point.
Tainted? Contaminated? Nice use of weasel words. So, why would Monsanto want to waste time suing people who don't buy their product? What would be then end goal? That would be like a Tyson Chicken suing vegetarians. There'd be no point. Seriously, do you even think about this? When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it. It's a big difference, one that anti-GMO groupstry to avoid mentioning mentioning....cause, you know, being misleading is the best way to make a point.
They sue to remove the organic thorn in their side from the marketplace.
When they DO sue is when someone gets cross pollinated, INTENTIONALLY selects for the gene, then grows it.
citation please.
Where are the states attorney billions in fines are in order.
I hope not. There is only 60 farmers suing. The 300,000 number comes form the number of members in the plaintiff organizations. So, if you sign up for the Cornucopia Institute's magazine or whatever, they you're being counted as one of the farmers suing. The 300,000 farmers thing is flat out wrong. Not that anyone cares. When it comes to GMOs, people tend to turn off their brain. I suppose it is a side effect of our population moving away from the land. Agricultural misinformation tends to spread when no one even knows a farmer anymore. This is what pisses me off about the state of genetic engineering. So many people are against it, and I think it is because so many people flat out lie about them.
If there's a place to send a donation to help the farmers against Monsanto, could it be posted here and publicized?
I'm always a pretty critical thinker and always question the source, but based on everything I've seen and read on this topic this seems to be the real deal
Then read this. 60 farmers. Not 300,000. Think critical about this: is a movement that lies to you going to give you good information about Monsanto and genetic engineering?
Is Monsanto the best company int the world? No. Are they the great Satan they're made out to be? They're not that either. The reason you see so much hate for Monsanto is because GE crops work. They work well, farmers are neither stupid nor powerless and they buy GE seed for a reason, and they're safe. If, for some reason, you dislike genetic engineering, there's only one way to reconcile these facts with you're superstitions: conspiracy. Think about how anti-vaxxers describe Merck or Pfizer, or what creationists say about evolutionary biologists. Same thing. I'm certainly not saying you should take anything Monsanto says at face value, be skeptical about them too, but 99% of what you hear about them is, quite frankly, just bullshit by the scientifically illiterate anti-GMO crowd.
A story about how Monsanto patented a melon seed with natural immunities in Europe and the opposition to the same:
"No Patents on Seeds” Against Indian Melon Patent
that current science fails to appreciate the power of nature to overcome our tweaking and fiddling. We have been seeing this for decades with antibiotics and more recently with poisons. So before long, the "value" of Monsanto GM seed will be lost while we selectively breed super-pests which will be even harder to kill and/or manage. Will Monsanto be penalized for creating these super-pests? I doubt it.
Relax. You're talking about "evolution." Everyone knows that's just a theory....
I hope they lose their shirts.
I am afraid Mosanto will not lose its shirt
The politicians will support them
The politicians will write laws to protect Mosanto
And the courts will side with Mosanto
That's the rule of the law in this modern world we live in
Governments in the world do not need their citizens
Citizens, to most governments in this world are considered "burdens"
Corporations like Mosanto, on the other hand, in the eyes of governments in this world, are "Paymasters"
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I recently read how a California woman successfully sued Honda in small claims court without the need to spend any money on lawyers. Actually, lawyers aren't permitted in small claims court so Organic farmers could sue Monsanto for practically nothing and Monsanto would not be allowed to send in their lawyers to defend them.
because the actual situation is so insane.
surprised there haven't been eggs thrown at Monsanto offices. Maybe there should be an Occupy Monsanto movement to deal(add to) with the insanity of this situation.
Are not synthetic chemicals used to produce GM seed?
all monsanto has to do is patent varieties of all the major crops (potato, rice, corn, wheat, soy, millet, sweet potato), secretly released pollen from their varieties in every agricultural region on earth, and one year later, ALL THE FOOD CROPS ARE OWNED BY MONSANTO. time to buy monsanto stock, or time for anonymous to become farmers...
Yet another cornspiracy theory.
PBS had documentaries on Montanto's predatory practices that puts small farmers out of their profession and livelihood precisely because they find evidence (obtained without the farm owner's permission in many cases) of their seed which may have happened due to natural causes. Independent farmers have no choice because the local governments are practically owned by Monsanto and the local governments do not attempt to stand up to Monsanto's practices. The laws need to changed but this is slashdot and we are nerds obsessed with our online rights only.
Unable to afford a proper defense, competing small farms have been bought out by the company in droves.
Specifically here, the claim that Monsanto has sued and then subsequently purchased any farm.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Anonymous. Seriously, why hasn't Anonymous focused its collectively twisted grin on these idiots? May be a case of so many targets, so little time. If anyone deserves to go through the wringer it's these guys. Then again they can claim victim all over again like they do with the courts. Still, regardless of what the courts of justice say, there's nothing more damaging than the court of public opinion. No government courtroom can save you from that.
I agree that answers were given which suprised me because they defy what I had been led to believe. It's astonishing that vitamin D deficiency is so widespread in a place with such intense sunlight.
Sorry about that micheas.
Another thing that fueled my disbelief is that within the last month one Australian state (NSW) has banned solariums (exposure to a lot of UV to get a tan indoors) due to the skin cancer risk.
How about Southern California Public Radio?
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2012/02/14/22523/monsanto-lawsuit
Also, New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/dining/a-suit-airs-debate-on-organic-vs-modified-crops.html
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
I said all this a couple of years ago here on /. and got trolled and insulted.
NOW, only a couple of years later... it's not so "crazy" anymore. Sometimes the bias of this community is just obscene. Thankfully people are starting to listen after how much damage has been done?
You are correct. Actually they patent it. And judges have already ruled that even if your crop is contaminated with Monsanto's strain through direct see drift even if its a fraction of your crop then you Monsanto own your crop. All of it. Google David VS Monsanto for details.
Actually it appears that decision was made by the Canadian supreme court, and that it was only the case because the farmer recognized the cross pollination of his crop but continued to use the seed anyway. Furthermore, at least according to wiki Monsanto wasn't awarded any damages in the case because the farmer didn't make any additional profit even knowingly using their seed. That being said the whole thing does still seem a bit ridiculous....
On the other hand, if the neighbour's cat damages your property, the neighbour doesn't have to pay. Why do you believe the analogy between pollen and dog is more "valid" than the analogy between pollen and cat?
Analogies are useful for creative thinking and explaining things. An analogy is never a valid argument.
is a movement that lies to you going to give you good information about Monsanto and genetic engineering?
You mean the pro-GMO crowd, don't you.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Firstly I'd like to say that I find this position incredible and therefore whatever system is in place that has enabled it to happen needs to be adjusted to prevent such cases in the future.
But to my point. I can see the argument for Monsanto to be granted a patent on their product, albeit I don't agree with it, but I can see that their investment needs some guarantee of a return. However, if their investment cannot naturally be contained by the users of the product then the product has a flaw and Monsanto should be solely responsible. In the case of a new patented engine part, the improvement is naturally contained within the engine, only those engines that contain the part can benefit from the advantage it brings, the advantage does not leak out.
In the case of Monsanto's product, the "advantage" has leaked out by natural causes that are beyond the control of the users or the recipients and this lack of containment was known by Monsanto before the product was launched; and indeed would have been known before the company embarked upon the research. I know it and I don't work in this field, no pun intended.
The matter is, I believe, much more serious for Monsanto and the correct precedent needs to be set at this stage; to get it wrong now is to do untold damage in the future. There are a good number of farmers that choose not to buy the Monsanto product because it does not fit in with their ethos or business plan. Unfortunately because Monsanto launched an uncontainable product upon the market they are forced to have it and therefore their chosen business will have been damaged, this is through no fault of their own and is solely the responsibility of Monsanto who did know that this would happen.
The case is actually doubly bad for Monsanto because they have demonstrably damaged a number of businesses and they effectively hold a monopoly over local, and possibly widespread, areas that they have forced upon the market. This behaviour is prohibited in most parts of the world.
We have to keep our fingers crossed that the decision on the 31st March supports the motion that there is a case to be answered.
Firstly I'd like to say that I find this position incredible and therefore whatever system is in place that has enabled it to happen needs to be adjusted to prevent such cases in the future. But to my point. I can see the argument for Monsanto to be granted a patent on their product, albeit I don't agree with it but I can see that their investment needs some guarantee or a return. However, if their investment cannot naturally be contained by the users of the product then the product has a flaw and Monsanto should be solely responsible. In the case of a new patented engine part, the improvement is naturally contained within the engine, only those engines that contain the part can benefit from the advantage it brings, the advantage does not leak out. In the case of Monsanto's product, the "advantage" has leaked out by natural causes that are beyond the control of the users or the recipients and this lack of containment was known by Monsanto before the product was launched; and indeed would have been known before the company embarked upon the research. I know it and I don't work in this field, no pun intended. The matter is, I believe, much more serious for Monsanto and the correct precedent needs to be set at this stage; to get it wrong now is to do untold damage in the future. There are a good number of farmers that choose not to buy the Monsanto product because it does not fit in with their ethos or business plan. Unfortunately because Monsanto launched an uncontainable product upon the market they are forced to have it and therefore their chosen business will have been damaged, this is through no fault of their own and is solely the responsibility of Monsanto who did know that this would happen. The case is actually doubly bad for Monsanto because they have demonstrably damaged a number of businesses and they effectively hold a monopoly over local, and possibly widespread, areas that they have forced upon the market. This behaviour is prohibited in most parts of the world. We have to keep our fingers crossed that the decision on the 31st March supports the motion that there is a case to be answered.
You'd have thought that 'merkins would have heard of "Franchise", wouldn't you.
Never lose sight of the fact that government, not Monsanto, is the root cause and key enabler of this blatant injustice.
Name me one lie that is frequently perpetuated by people who support genetic engineering. The anti-GE people frequently say things like they're unsafe, they don't work, 60 equals 300,000, and a study that says something does not happen means it does, all of which are provably false.
Christ, this is the twenty first century, why are we even having this asinine debate? Wanna talk about 'lies' from the pro-evolution crowd too?
GM may not even affect the CURRENT generation of adults very much. But, due to epigenetics, your food and how you live your life affects the gene expression even in your reproductive cells(eggs, sperm). Your kids could be more affected than you are, and their kids even worse. No one knows yet.
Fox News And Ron Paul`s Video Deception
Why Does Fox News Hate Ron Paul?
... was a disgrace to the U. S. legal system.
Having actually done regular breeding, I'd have to say that's quite the load of manure you're selling there.
Radiation and chemical exposure happens in nature (there's this big radioactive thing called the Sun that hangs in the sky all day long, go figure) but the type of lab-induced mutations you are talking about are not part of normal selective breeding as practiced by farmers all over the world for centuries.
And the "Green Revolution" of the 1940s-70s was not possible, even with the high-yielding crop varieties that were developed using both traditional and lab methods, without the use of petroleum. The herbicides, fertilizers, enhanced irrigation, road networks, etc. were all made possible by cheap oil - the super-seeds required these things and would not have succeeded without them. The Green Revolution is about cheap oil permitting the wealthy petrodollar states to push their commodity farming out into cheap labor areas, for the benefit of all parties involved - and has little or nothing to do with corporations purposely infecting the crops of independent farmers with copyrighted genes so that they can steal their land.
I wonder if all the corporate propaganda that dominates high-modded slashdot posts these days is paid for. We know the zaibatsus and their politician puppets pay for people to monitor and edit Wikipedia 24x7, do you suppose they do it on /. also?
As Curunir_wolf pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the USDA says:
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.’’
That seems pretty damn clear to me.
How about a quote from the USDA?
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.’’
Unfortunately, the "organic" label in no way guarantees that you aren't getting food contaminated by GMO products. With the US government supporting Monsanto's fight against GMO labeling and the on-going problem of GMOs corrupting non-GMO crops, despite their government certification it is nearly guaranteed that some GMO corn was present in the organic feed provided to the cows at the organic dairy.
Is basically what it is. The only casualties will just be those people who eat.
What if another company's GMO showed up in Monsanto's crops? Can they sue and take over their land? There could be an entire takeover war here.
Does it pay well? Being a whore for Monsanto, I mean.
THIS is exactly why I think GM sucks big time! - And I'm not talking about General Motors here...
I'm also not going into debate about weather organic, "regular" or GM is more healthy to you. I'm just talking about the economics. Wether you want to give more power to corporations and let them ass-rape you even harder.
The corporations have been feeding the FUD about how GM-crops will save the world from hunger and all that bull. The truth is that they won't give a rats ass about anyone dying of hunger on their own door step, as long as it doesn't effect the profits. GM will not make food more available, the very opposite. By allowing GM (actually the patenting of genetic code) you are essentially allowing the corporations to control the raw material for food. And that actually makes food more expensive and the poor will get even less food, so it's in fact increasing hunger in the world.
This is exactly why I think patenting genetics should NOT be allowed!
Lion eats Zebra, declares himself lord of the jungle. Zebras turn into swarming hoard of army ants. Lion roars, but ants silently approach sleeping beast. Beast roars, but damage from millions of stinging bites starts to bring large and mighty "king of the jungle" beast down. Lion kills millions of ants in defence, but struggles fail after half an hour. Ants spend the next week stripping the 'Lord of the Jungle' down to skeletal remains. Stated by last little ant to strip flesh from carcass: "Payback Biotch!"
I never said anything about the "dangers" or otherwise of GE crops. I'm talking about Monsanto's unscrupulous tactics in suing defenceless farmers for acts of nature over which they have no control.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
It is pretty damn clear. GMO is "not considered compatible with organic production", but the actual law restricts organic designation to cultivation techniques. So it's legal but not "right". So, then the question becomes, do you believe a label when they aren't required by law to follow the definition you prefer? Wouldn't you prefer the two separate labels, "non-GMO" and "organic" to be sure you are getting what you expect? Because the legal definition doesn't even agree with the opinion of it by the USDA enforcement organization.
Learn to love Alaska
There's a bunch of stuff that's clearly false in the article. I think Monsanto is an horrible evil, but there's almost nothing bad that Monsanto does that's accurately mentioned in this article. Worthless hyperbole. It's stuff like this that makes people fighting Monsanto seem like kooks.
Absolutely, but Monsanto and their government enforcers have already ruled that non-GMO labels are pointless and not required. Further, they aren't even allowed in some cases.
This is a problem either way. If there's a chance of creating a dangerous organism, there's still a chance the organism will find a way to reproduce. Viable means "capable of living" and, again, "life finds a way". On the other side, you're right that it's a problem even if harmful organisms aren't produced, because farmers can't grow crops from the seeds.
There's no contradiction in the fact that both these scenarios are real concerns. Terminator seeds at once bankrupt farmers and fail to stop potential catastrophe. They do this by being too much a block to continued growing and too little a block to catastrophe. I grant you it is ironic — because irony is based on perception, and we could misperceive hippies to want farmers to continue growing GMOs. Or we could resolve the apparent paradox by just realizing that it's bad that farmers are suffering, even if they were trying to do something dangerous.
Anyone who works or worked for Monsanto, needs to be killed across the board.
Hmm be careful you or your 401K may own shares of Monsanto then you will be forced to kill yourself.
But that never happened. they were sued for intentionally selecting for and saving the cross pollinated seed. They were caught for spraying crap loads of Round-Up on their fields. That isn't something that just happens. Saying Monsanto goes around just suing farmers is like saying that a restaurant supply company randomly sues restaurants. Farmers are Monsanto's customers. What you think they do wouldn't even be in their best interests.
I didn't mean to imply you had mentioned anything about danger, just explaining why Monsanto being evil is so essential.
They sue to remove the organic thorn in their side from the marketplace.
The organic industry would really have to be flattering itself to think that. I doubt Monsanto really gives a hoot about them. Maybe if they were more than a small fraction of the market, but they're not. What you're saying would be like saying that Microsoft sues the small fraction of people who use Linux to marginally expand their market.
citation please.
I can't really think of any place that lists all the trials, but I've never heard of one where that wasn't the case. If anyone can show me one where it was Monsanto just randomly suing someone for being cross pollinated I'd be thankful for the link. Strangely, people have no problem saying it happens all the time but can't seem to go into specifics. I can't imagine why.
Fortunately, my people were able to emigrate to Kentucky and duke it out with the less barbaric locals, so we didn't starve. Less opportunity this time around, they might get to join the underclass.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I've spent some time with cows, and the thing they seem most skilled at is eating, so yeah I think somehow they can indeed tell the difference. I also much prefer the flavor of heirloom variety produce from our organic farm to that Monsanto flavored dreck that all you poor folks get from the supermarkets. YMMV
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
He's a subscriber, he gets access to the articles at least 15 minutes before they post. Gives people a leg up on that epic first post of defending criminal organizations stealing from hard working American farmers.
Not only does Monsanto create toxic products that have been proven to harm humans and animals, but it egregiously abuses the patent system. It's great news that a number of countries have started to ban the company's products; I hope the US and all other nations will eventually follow suit.