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.'"

7 of 617 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wait! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes... this is essentially what has been happening. Plus as part of the agreement that small farmers MUST sign they can not keep any of of their crop to be "cleaned" and used for next year's seed. The agreement essentially makes it that the plant is owned by Monsanto. Even if farmers steer clear of Monsanto seed, if there is any cross pollination and the the gene that Monsanto "owns" gets to be part of the crop then the seed police come knockin'.

    If you are interested in more information about this and the other evil that Monsanto has been a part of, take a look at the movie and the book "The World According to Monsanto" by Marie-Monique Robin. She tries to be fair, but be aware it's very anti-Monstanto since they used the trick of never talking to her about anything.

  2. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    No they aren't sterile. The terminator gene got SO MUCH bad press that they never were able to use it.

  3. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    Organic does not mean no pesticides. There are pesticides that are certified organic, see here.

    Some organic pesticides can cause cancer. Others are extremely toxic to surrounding wild life due to runoff. Organic pesticides may require more applications than equivalent non-organic pesticides.

    I am not saying to not eat organic, but everyone needs to understand what "Organic" does and does not mean. And that term is under constant attack by large scale commercial farming organizations to water it down as much as they can. And most organic farms are not owning up to exactly how much organic pesticides they actually use. Or even disclosing the use of such pesticides.

  4. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    I see nothing in that definition that prohibits "genetically modified" seed being used. In addition, the CFR seems to be most interested in restriction who can used the official USDA "organic" label, not in what can be referred to as "organic".

  5. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by sugarmatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    You, sir, are categorically wrong. I have known a family for years, with their own fields dedicated to seed production, that were entrapped in Monsanto's corruption. Their own land. Their own seed. Their own equipment.

    They were threatened with a lawsuit, and they could not afford the money to defend themselves. Everyone around them was using Monsanto seed- they were positive it meant their crops had been contaminated with whatever blew over the fences over the 40-plus years their family had owned the operation.

    One is now a cashier at Walmart. The other tries to be a woodworker. They don't raise seed on the place anymore- they lease it to someone who uses Monsanto seed.

  6. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remeber that _tiny_ test plot of Bayer Life Sciences unapproved for consumption GMO rice that managed to contaminate the entire states rice supply in sufficient quantity that the states entire crop was wasted.

    Hmmm... a tiny test plot, and and entire states crop ruined.

    Some of that may have happened here too.

    Monsanto GMO pollen trespasses on the organic farmers land, contaminating his crop. Farmer collects the seed. Seed exchanged with other farmers (genetic diversity is a good thing normally). Now the contaminated seed has spread well beyond the original farm.

    Monsanto should have to pay for the cleanup of its contamination. And any losses the farmers suffered.

    Wild rape seed in Canada is GMO now, due to "Roundup Ready" genes hopping over from GMO Canola. Containing GMO is a fantasy. And the costs for GMO contamination are born by the innocent party who was damaged in our corrupt corporate run country / world.

  7. Re:COUNTERSUE! by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's been tried. The Canadian Supreme Court declined to hear that case on the grounds that it did not meet the standards of a class action suit. Consequently Canada is in the perverse situation where Monsanto reaps all the financial benefit of distributing Roundup Ready Canola into the ecosystem, but bears no responsibility for the damage it does to people who don't want it.

    That case was just two farmers trying to get class action status though. If this one is 300,000 farmers, then I suspect they'll have a much better chance.