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.'"

16 of 617 comments (clear)

  1. Wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Wait! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should be possible for the farmers to sue Monsanto, not just as a response to their suits, but for polluting their crops. If Monsanto claims ownership of the genes, then the fact that those genes are trespassing is also Monsanto's fault.

    2. Re:Wait! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I suppose that they do not realize that the Native Americans also crossbred their crops, thus genetically modifying their food. "

      That has to be the king of all straw-man arguments!

      Monsanto has not just been "cross-pollinating" crops. They have been mixing in genes from animals, not just plants, some of them genetically modified themselves. That is NOT something that normally happens in nature.

      Monsanto, and certain other corporations, want to rule your food supply. It is as simple as that. And there is no way in Hell they should be allowed to do that.

      I hope they lose their shirts.

  2. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the very fact that second-hand seed is disallowed already is evil. So no grey in this case.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Couldn't happen to a nicer corporation! by h4x354x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  4. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you say "you cannot patent life", do you mean "you should not be able to patent life"? My understanding is that you can, in fact, patent life other than a fully-formed human being -- all other life forms are patentable. But perhaps I am happily incorrect.

  5. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's alive and outside of anyone's control. The plants go where they want to. This is the basic problem with granting patents of this kind. The "product" spreads and infests everyone else's property. Pretty soon, you are stuck planting contaminated seed stock or nothing.

    NO. It's it's Monsanto that should be getting judgements against farmers, it's farmers and entire countries that should be getting judgements against Monsanto.

    This whole nonsense is like saying that Cheney owns your house just because his dog sh*t in your yard.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  6. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by dougmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And meanwhile, these seeds are about as healthy as dioxin.

    Exaggerate much?

  7. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [...] audits revealed that their farms had contained their product — as a result of routine pollination by animals and acts of nature.

    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.

  8. It's obvious to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  9. whoa, man, like, go _natural_ by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    Compared with thousands of years of human agricultural co-evolution, these modifications are nowhere near as thoroughly-tested.

    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?"

    1. Re:whoa, man, like, go _natural_ by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You gotta put it into accurate terms that most slashdotters can understand:

      Organic = Open Source

      GM = Closed Source

      (I was partially going for a joke but this is accurate regardless...)

  10. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by ApharmdB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not necessarily. Organic food has gotten the notice of big business. With so many Monsanto lobbyists working in the federal gov't & Obama administration, expect to see attempts to weaken organic standards. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24575.cfm

  11. COUNTERSUE! by mmell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Monsanto's GM products are finding their way into places where they were not (necessarily) wanted.

    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.

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

    ButButBut, he didn't BUY the seeds, he LICENSED them!

    You're modded "Funny", but that's actually Monsanto's argument.

  13. Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but by MidGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed they should be able to.

    Unfortunately there is a certain asymmetry in the legal resources that can be deployed by Monsanto and by the small farmers.

    I believe that when there is crop contamination of an organic farm it takes a very long time to re-establish the accreditation and all that time results in loss of earning that ought to be compensated by Monsanto, imo. Let;s add to that the cost to reputation, some opportunity costs, etc...

    I hope Monsanto has enough money to cover all those for all those farm that have been and will be contaminated even by a single GM plant found on their fields.

    The legalization of GM crop is one of the most idiotic output of the legal system. There is no way that cross contamination will not occur, even without any action by a legitimate organic farmer. What is worse, it will increase and spread. It is totally impossible to contain... the genie is out of the bottle and he is not benign, far from it.

    The Monsantos of the world will be perceived in the future as worse than cigarettes companies are now, they have unleashed an uncontainable plague.