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.'"

Comments

I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[elrous0]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[bigtrike]

Would it be easy to tell through genetic testing whether it was a second hand monsanto seed or a hybrid of it and another breed?

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[maxwell demon]

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

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[wisnoskij]

It does not matter. You cannot patent life so even if these farmers are using second generation Monsanto seed on purpose they are doing nothing wrong.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Baloroth]

Sorry if that complicates the "Noble Farmer vs. Evil Corporation" black-and-white narrative.

No, it just turns it into a slightly-scummy underdog versus one of the greatest hives of evil in the world. Monsanto has claimed it literally does not matter how their seed ends up in a farm, or if it is being used in any way whatsoever, they will still sue for patent infringement merely by it being present without being purchased. Lookup Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser if you don't believe me. For comparison, this would be like (not just kind of similar, but almost exactly the same as) suing someone for copyright infringement after finding a copy of your virus on their system, which they did not put there, and then winning.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[elrous0]

It's not a contradiction. There is a big difference between a farmer who may have some Monsanto crops on the fringes of his fields, and a guy whose entire crop is Monsanto (but who trying to claim it's "just from stray pollination").

BTW, not only is the latter "organic farmer" screwing Monsanto--he is also screwing the consumer, by passing off his genetically modified crops as organic.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Wild_dog!]

Except most Organic Farmers I know view GMO seed from Monsanto to be like Kryptonite. Monsanto=Evil incarnate. Not something you would even serve to your dog or any living creature for that matter.

If you are talking about any old farmer, perhaps you could be right in some way, but most people who get into Organic farming are philosophically opposed to businesses like Monsanto. In my experience anyhow. I live in an area where Monsanto and GMO's are kind of worrisome because of the fear of cross-pollination.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[guspasho]

Man, whatever Monsanto is paying you, it isn't enough. Spoken like a true flak.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[plopez]

What Monsato needs to do is prevent their seeds from getting loose, as well as the pollen. Cross pollination should be the problem of the patent holder.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[SultanCemil]

I'm not entirely sure how this is a "contradiciton". Would you disagree with the following statement:

Yes, I have no doubt that some innocent people are being caught up unfairly in the process. But I also can't blame New York for having these much-malinged "police".

As much fun as it is to bash Monsanto, if we want to change the patent regime, we must do it ourselves. Monsanto is only doing what is best for their shareholders - protecting their patents. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but not expecting them to do so is silly. Having said that, innocent farmers should obviously not fall prey to this.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[MickyTheIdiot]

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

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Myopic]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[sl4shd0rk]

A lot of cheap-ass farmers will buy secondhand Monsanto seed from cleaners

Are you serious? The farming majority are being litigated out of existence because their neighbors Monsanto GMO corn can be cross-pollinated by natural processes (eg: wind, bees, animals). The farmers have _no_way_ to prevent this. How can they be held liable for that?

Monsanto is pulling sneaky, sleazy copyright sh*t on a bunch of people who are hardly making a living here.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. First-sale doctrine. A farmer can who whatever the heck he wants with the farm product. He already paid Monsanto for first-hand seed.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[MickyTheIdiot]

You can't control what the bees do. Cross pollination happens. The Monsanto genes have been found even in countries that have outlawed its use.

On top of this there have been fairly predatory actions by the "seed police" P.I.s. They look closely at *anyone* that does seed cleaning, and if there is any cross pollination they sue. There are even allegations they encouraged cross pollination so they could sue non-customers.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[v1]

It does not matter. You cannot patent life

Yes you can, in a limited way. You can patent genetic modifications. And that's what this is all about.

The problem here is that there's no foolproof way to prevent this variation of copyright infringement. (Monsanto is like the RIAA of the farm) And so they've bought the laws stacked heavily in their favor to make sure they can legally go after everyone they're entitled to, at a cost of being able to go after a lot of innocents as well. (one of my pet peeves, overly broad laws)

In this case the big issue is that if a farmer has a field near a Monsanto field, the wind WILL (not slim chance, not might, not maybe, WILL) cross-pollinate with some of the corn in his field. Then the goons can come in and find a kernel or two that contain DNA from their patented field, and by the law that makes you breaking the law and owing damagesa. So now the little farmer gets extorted out of his land. And that's just how the laws have been bought onto the books. It's not right, but that's the law now.

This isn't like music downloading where 95% is infringing and they're trying to hide under the "5% of it is lawful so you have to allow it" umbrella. There is a significant percentage of "unavoidable unintentional infringing" going on and companies like Monsanto abuse the law to their advantage as a result.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[vlm]

What Monsato needs to do is prevent their seeds from getting loose, as well as the pollen. Cross pollination should be the problem of the patent holder.

No, if you're small or medium sized business and you have a stupid business plan, then you go out of business.

If you're big business and you have a stupid business plan, then you hire the government to make everyone else suffer until you make money.

Are you from the US? This is the same business model as RIAA, MPAA, the entire financial industry, blah blah blah. Not exactly anything new.

Get big, purchase the govt as hired guns, become a parasitical tax on the population.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[dougmc]

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

Exaggerate much?

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the nonsense that certain organic farmers and various industry groups may claim, the terms "organic" and "genetically modified" are unrelated and in no way mutually exclusive. This is especially true in consumer foods, where the term "organic" is completely unregulated and thus meaningless, beyond than the implicit meaning of "really fucking expensive".

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to write a virus that infects computers connected to the internet and sends home their location. Then sue them for having my virus on their computers... profit!!!

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[elrous0]

But the Monsanto patented crops are sterile

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

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[DarwinSurvivor]

They are organic. Organic signifies no pesticides/etc. Genetically modified is just creative breeding (with some other species of course), but there is nothing *unhealthy* sprayed on them or added to the soil.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[willaien]

You can even patent body parts - guy found that a hospital patented an unusual genetic quirk of his while studying his blood...

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Wild_dog!]

That is why people are concerned with the unilateral roll-out of GMO's. It affects their crops whether they want to buy the seeds or not.

Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation because the corporation's crops are contaminating theirs.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[AvitarX]

Isn't Organic now officially defined in the US?

Doesn't it exclude genetically modified?

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[DarwinSurvivor]

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

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[stanlyb]

More correct way to compare it is: ....RIAA is hacking your computer and uploading "illegal!!!" movies and mp3, and then suing you for piracy.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Reapy]

I recall reading/watching something saying that organic farming still used pesticides, but none of the new, probably better, synthetic ones. I guess they were 'natural source' pesticides. I guess wikipedia has a list of some.

Eh anyway, also in the same study I remember that on average it said most organic fruits did have much less pesticides on them when they hit the store, but all things end up equal after you rinse it off under water.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[RockClimbingFool]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[cptgrudge]

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

Citation, please.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Baby Duck]

It doesn't matter if even if 99% of the farmers were consciously cheating Monsanto. There is no reasonable way to separate them from those whose crops were planted by creatures or wind -- unless you actually catch the cheater in the act. It is unconscionable to let the law stand by evidence of possession alone.

Furthermore, if Monsanto modifies a gene sequence and patent it, it doesn't matter if the EXACT SAME DNA SEQUENCE has existed in nature for hundreds of thousands of years. The patent is still valid. Monsanto has been persecuting farmers in India who have been growing crops for generations under the false premise they stole a DNA sequence.

The "seed police" are little more than thugs and illegal vigilantes. I would place them under citizen's arrest for trespassing on my farmland if they dared to "audit" me.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

National Organic Program:

"What is organic?
Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used."

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[19thNervousBreakdown]

If only brainwashing citizens into being corporate shills were patentable.

I don't give a flying fuck how "legal" what they're doing is, it's wrong. The farmers' unethical labor and business practices is a completely separate issue, and your implication that they somehow deserve Monsanto's lawyer brigade for anything short of literally breaking into Monsanto granaries and stealing seed is ridiculous, as in you deserve to be ridiculed for holding such a stupid belief. Allowing them to be sued for bullshit because they did something else wrong is the very antithesis of justice.

While you're cheering your masters, those of us with a brain in our heads will be laughing them off at every struggle Monsanto and any other company that tries to patent life faces.

Until their cyborg police come bashing in our doors, anyway.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[ApharmdB]

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

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[willaien]

Very well, first of all, Gene Patents are valid and legal, due to landmark cases:
Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
The most recent decision on this case is that patents can be held. The particular case I was referring to is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children's_Hospital_Research_Institute

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[MSTCrow5429]

Utterly wrong. Life can be patented. Plant Patent Act of 1930; Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Rasperin]

Practice safe pollination, kids; don't want to get the branch rot.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Teun]

Genetically modified is just creative breeding

You are so wrong.
Regular breeding is the breeding of existing varieties of a species in the hope to achieve a better offspring

Genetic modification is done in a laboratory at microscopic level, right at the genes and often genetic traits of non-related species are put in the mix.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[viperidaenz]

Can't the orgnic farmers sue Monsanto for infecting their crops with genetically modified pollen?

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Obfuscant]

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".

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[HornWumpus]

FYI second generation seeds of recent (F1 IIRC) hybrids (e.g. Trainwreck, O.G. Kush, Sour Diesel) are useless.

The children will have random mixes of the grandparents characteristics. Not an even 50/50 mix. Some will be very like one grandparent, others will have different mixes. Unpredictable and basically useless.

Older stabilized hybrids and pure breeds (e.g. Thai Haze, Hindu Kush etc) breed true.

Put simply second generation seeds are disallowed by nature in many cases. Monsanto has counted on this 'feature' sense well before genetic engineering existed.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[erroneus]

Interestingly, the "pesticide-built-in" plants are already losing their effect on pests which are now becoming "super-pests." There was a story here on slashdot a few weeks ago I believe.

It's amazing to me 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.

It's not necessarily only about whether it is "safe for human consumption." There are other considerations that make GM foods like these a BAD IDEA.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[AngryDeuce]

There is a big difference between a farmer who may have some Monsanto crops on the fringes of his fields, and a guy whose entire crop is Monsanto (but who trying to claim it's "just from stray pollination").

Is there? It seems like Monsanto really doesn't care one way or the other; as far as they're concerned, the seed police return a positive hit, it's time to mobilize the lawyer brigade and litigate someone out of existence.

This is a big problem with the legal system in my opinion. These huge corporations can use their considerable wealth to basically destroy anyone with the temerity to not immediately fold on just the threat of litigation. Sure, there can be a judgement for damages and the cost of the defense down the road (years down the road in most cases) but these aren't criminal cases, these are civil matters, so the burden of retaining representation is wholly on John Q. Farmer. How the hell can a regular Joe compete in the courtroom against these large corporations? Simply finding a lawyer that is willing to take the case is difficult a lot of the time because they know how hard it is going to be to fight these goliaths with their in-house legal staff. This creates an enormous chilling effect where a lot of lawsuits aren't even really fought, not because the case didn't have merit, but because they couldn't afford to make it in the first place.

I don't know how we solve that problem, but it needs solving. Our justice system is already ridiculously skewed towards the benefit of the wealthy, shit like this just tips the balance that much more.

So does the license agreement Monsanto must make people agree to require users to forfeit their right to sue and settle for arbitration like all the software companies are doing now? If not, I bet it's coming. That will solve their lawsuit problem once and for all.

America! Fuck Yeah!

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[sugarmatic]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[fahrbot-bot]

There are other considerations that make GM foods like these a BAD IDEA.

Read The Windup Girl for a (fictionalized) glimpse at that thought.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is when you and GP act like this is a copyright issue.

It's not, it's a patent issue -- so "first-sale doctrine" doesn't apply, "derivative works" doesn't apply. All that matters is whether you have implemented the invention covered by the patent and it's possible to do so even if you've never had access to a licensed implementation.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Tanktalus]

I know that somehow (scent?) animals can tell the difference. If you have herbivorous animals and you give them a choice between eating naturally-occurring crops and genetically-engineered crops, they will eat the naturally-occurring ones every time. If nothing else is available they would eat the engineered ones but they definitely don't want to. Just like the way animals suddenly evacuate an area prior to a tsunami, don't you think maybe this is telling us something?

Yeah, it's telling us that there are poisonous plants out there and animals prefer a whitelist of known non-poisonous plants over a blacklist of known poisonous plants. We all know that whitelists are more secure than blacklists, why is it surprising that evolution played out that way, too?

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

In other words, after the GM food comes out of you again at the other end of your gastrointestinal tract, don't resell it to anyone else, since you're not allowed to, but carefully collect it instead and mail it back to: Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis. (Large batches preferred.)

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[jmkaza]

Systemic pesticides don't wash off. They enter the plant and work from the inside. Root vegetables (potatoes, carrots, radish, etc) are pretty much sponges that suck up anything in the soil, pesticides included.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh blow it out yer' hole. The day the Monsanto blows up in a fiery ball is the day I'll happily dance on their graves. That's not a threat, but I think they are one of the most dangerous companies on the planet.

The facts that I've seen so far, claim that Monsanto GM crops are worse in the long term - they require more herbicide than normal crops long term, and they are more expensive. Also, these herbicide crops are cross-polinating with road-side weeds and transferring the Roundup resistance to wild species. The farmers they sell seed to are not being trained to properly plant, rotate and rest fields. All in all I think it will be the biggest disaster in agricultural history.

I'm NOT against GMO foods - I think that genetics can do wonderful things for humanity. I just think that the work Monsanto has done so far is terrible.

The truth is that instead of creating nutritional, high quality and resistant foods, Monsanto concentrated on profit and pesticide sales. Companies shouldn't win when the product is crap - and that's all I see in Monsanto GM foods.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No, actually, we could pretty much all read it.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[wall0159]

I'm sure that Monsanto must have identified Organic food as a strategic threat to their business and are doing all they can to stymie its expansion. Between their attempts to weaken organic standards to include GM foods, and farmers losing their organic certification because of GM contamination (http://permaculture.org.au/2011/02/01/australias-first-legal-attack-on-monsanto-for-gm-contamination-of-organically-certified-crops/), and now suing organic farmers that can have no interest in encouraging patented GM crops on their land, it appears that Monsanto are being quite effective.

Personally, I view this as the 21st century version of the Scottish enclosures, where what was once common property (or at least accessible) was forever fenced off and the traditional occupants evicted.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Half-pint HAL]

I recall reading/watching something saying that organic farming still used pesticides, but none of the new, probably better, synthetic ones. I guess they were 'natural source' pesticides. I guess wikipedia has a list of some.

You may be thinking of the Soil Association, who've effectively monopolised the term "organic" in the UK.

I grew up with very heavy environmental leanings, but I'm not afraid to call the Soil Association a bunch of human-hating greenies. Their line was that pesticides that are toxic to humans were OK, because farmers won't use as much (because there are strict legal limits on their use), but that never less toxic ones were bad because farmers use more and poison river systems with them. All this while declaring that organic food is better for you because there's less pesticides used. Hypocritical human-hating hippies.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[micheas]

The scary thing is that the scientific studies that are peer reviewed about gmo's is shockingly close to zero.

Some of the gmo's are possibly a lot better for you and some are possibly as bad as the grand parent post claims, and the industry doesn't seem to want to know, which leads to some uncomfortable thoughts about the safety of our food supply and monocrops that are enabled by gmo's.

Did you know that if a five digit PLU code starts with the number 8 it is GMO, but nobody uses that code, the idea was that maybe GMO foods would be higher in vitamins or have some other positive value and be worth more to consumers. The reality is that food industry believes that if it was easy to tell if food was GMO it would not sell except at very steep discount. Sort of like Chinese peppers are about 1/5 the price of peppers grown in Chile in the San Francisco area (at least at the stores I shop at.)

The food industry's behavior around GMO food is similar enough to how the tobacco industry behaved that people are very suspicious of GMO foods.

If the food industry was willing to have clear labels on all GMO food maybe there would be some studies that would allow us to say what GMO food is and isn't fit for human consumption. Some of it is probably fine, some of it probably not so.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[WaffleMonster]

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

I have a feeling the last thing the overwhelming majority of organic farmers want in their fields is monsanto demon seed. Afterall organic GMO is an oxymoron.

Monsanto creates an environment where those following traditional seed selection practices can no longer compete. Farmers are required to pay to stay in business and anyone who does not pay is accused when their invasive species takes over.

Meanwhile we have Monsanto tweaking gods creations in subtle ways and contractually offloading all responsibility for the predictable and inveitable consequences to the farmers.

Legal structures and common sense simply can't exist this disconnected from reality without society having to eventually pay the consequences.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[s73v3r]

No, it's not. It's fucking evil. And it's fucking evil that anyone can even THINK of asking such terms just to sell seed.

This retarded idea you have that big business can do whatever the fuck the want has got to stop. Just because someone "agrees" to something does NOT make it right.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[The Askylist]

Whoosh!

That, sir, was the sound of your post going so far over most Slashdotter's heads that they'd need a good toke just to spot it.

I salute you.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Genda]

As a society we need to start figuring out where the line is between what's good for the stockholder vs. what's good for society. Its great for holders of tabacco stock to make cigarettes as addictive as possible. Not so great for society. Monsanto is systematically wiping out any farm that doesn't grow with its seed. It will take a class action suit against them from thousands of farmers to stop what amounts to predatory practices against innocent farmers whose only crime in most cases is being downwind when Monsanto crops pollinate.

That, or allow Monsanto to destroy all small farms not using their product. I which case, Monsanto share holders do incredibly well, and the country suffers.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Half-pint HAL]

More to the point, Monsanto's dominant seed crops constitute a monoculture, which is a dangerous thing. For example, there has been a near monoculture in wheat since someone managed to selective breed a variety resistant to stem rust (a fungal disease). When stem rust eventually evolved to grow on modern crops, it quickly became an epidemic, and spread far more quickly than would have been possible in biodiverse crops. AFAIK, it's still a major problem, and they're still trying to find the solution.

Of course, Monsanto aren't worried about monoculture, because they can just invent and market a new monoculture later, and they'll get paid just the same. But for the farmers, the lost crops mean lost earnings, and for the rest of us, well... it isn't possible for a whole society to buy themselves out of a famine, only the privileged few.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[bickerdyke]

The biggest advantage of the popular GM crops is that you can drown them in pesticides without killing the plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Genetically_modified_crops

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[DarwinSurvivor]

I meant laboratory cross breeding at the gene level, maybe I should have been more specific. Basic breeding takes 2 animals and get them to mate creating a new animal that hopefully inherits the *good* qualities of both previous animals. Genetic engineering allows you to CHOSE which traits get passed on. Once you can do it artificially (no sex), you can cross-breed different species, then you can pull individual traits from one species and put them into another, then you can start creating your OWN traits and put them in. No matter how you do it, you still have a normal animal (or plant) at the end, it's just been artificially evolved.

Had someone in the caveman erra genetically modified (at the gene level) a wolf into what is now a chihuahua, they would have been labeled evil and unnatural and probably had their new creation banned from public availability. But because the chihuahua was creating through old-fashioned selective breeding, we don't think twice about it (well, unless you neighbour has one that won't stop barking).

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing to me 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.

It's not about current science failing to appreciate the power of nature. Instead it's all about profit (ie. money). Even a temporary short-term advantage means more profit for however long it lasts and that's all companies care about, long term consequences be damned. In fact, by creating super-pests they're queuing up more problems to solve in the future for profit.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[AvitarX]

I think currently it falls under the synthetic parts.

You can't make the seeds without use of synthetic chemicals.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[thisnamestoolong]

I think a more apt metaphor would be if I were to create a computer virus that dumped itself into commercial software that had been created by others, and then suing them for infringing on my copyrights.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[MidGe]

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.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Sique]

Not exactly.

Breeding only selects on the allele level (except for the seldom situation of an actual and not life threatening gene mutation). That means you don't get any new genes into your lifestock, you just recombine the alleles and then select for the best combinations.

There is a way to actually get new genes into your lifestock, it's called hybridization. It works pretty well for plant species that are closely related, so are most citrus fruits actually hybrids. It does not work so well for animals, the few wellknown examples of hybrids are almost all sterile, like the mule.

Genetic engineering puts genes that come from completely different livings into the genome, e.g. bacterial genes into plants, vertebrate genes into bacteria etc.pp. You don't get that type of modifications with breeding.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[VortexCortex]

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

Citation, please.

The plants are engineered to produce an insecticide that kills insects, and it's escaping from the fields...

Lets say an ecosystem needs insects: Having 85% of all the streams around a genetically modified crop being polluted with insecticide masquerading as food might be an issue... In fact, it would be equivalent to sprinkling the countryside with some level of dioxin.

I'd say that pesticides escaping and even proliferating on their own is a generally bad idea. You can disagree with me, but then morons also exist.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

I call BS on this.

Anecdotal I know, but growing up on the farm when I showed up with a load of chopped corn the cows came running just as fast and ate just as much whether it was out of the non-GM fields (our fields) or a load that we bought the crop from the neighbor that only grew corn (GM).

Their might be some types of GM that the animals can detect (maybe the natural pesticides that some GMs produce) but they sure cannot detect all the GM crops.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Except Monsanto doesn't sample the fields. Usually they wait until you have harvested the corn and takes a sample from your storage bin. Know way to know what part of the field it came from once it's in the bin. Now I will agree with an above poster that plenty of farmers will do almost anything to save a buck including using unauthorized seed but Monsanto is not interested in determining how you got their patented DNA into your field just that you did.

The ability to patent seed and other living things is another thing that is wrong with our patent system but that is another discussion.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[andydread]

When it comes to patented Monsanto seed Judges have ruled exactly that. If Monsanto's patented seed contaminates your property whether its through direct seed drift, cross pollination, bees, etc you are still liable and not only that, they have rights to all your crop and seed stores including the ones that are not contaminated.

So yes as the law that was purchased by Monsanto stands right now if Cheney's patented dog shits in your yard they Cheney owns all the shit in your yard from not only his dog but from yours also. This is the law as purchased by Monsanto.

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[jmerlin]

Then where does it end? Let's consider the facts:

1. Monsanto abuses genetics to accidentally (not kidding) on purpose make Round-Up (TM) resistant corn.
2. This corn is """""licensed"""""" to some farmers to produce it (probably at no cost to prove Monsanto's corn is epic).
3. This corn is then sold to the people who use it -- not people who are legally in a contract with Monsanto. These people then either cook the corn and sell it for foodstuffs, distill it into ethanol, turn it into feed, or re-use the corn for planting future crops (or some combination of the three, plus whatever else corn is used for).
4. Of the cases where the corn (not labeled property of Monsanto, I'm sure) was re-used on different farm plots around the US (because sometimes you need seed to plant corn, ridiculous, right?), Monsanto seed appeared in a pretty large % of plots around the US based purely on how the farming industry works.
5. Monsanto creates a seed-Nazi party and goes around testing every farm it can find for Mansanto seed. If any is found, the owner is sued, and because the owner can't defend itself against a multi-billion dollar corporation, it just settles.
6. Monsanto gains total control over the growth of corn in the USA.

I have a few problems with this, and although IANAL, I would assume any sane judge would too. First, the addition of seeds into patent law (at the behest of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes, campaign contributions, and extremely highly compensated do-nothing positions after retirement) is incompatible with the infringing case of the same law:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

If one considers what was patentable before these cases, it would seem.... unlikely.... to say the least.. that you would drop a patented lawnmower into some dirt and a few months later, hundreds of near perfect replica lawnmowers would have grown in its place. Worst of all, if one carefully examines the patent law, that which is patentable is never that which already existed.

So we have a problem. Monsanto has achieved the patentability of genetically modified seeds. But these seeds are (for the people using them, in general) indistinguishable from a naturally occurring, pre-existing product (corn). Secondly, it is implied in the infringement section quoted above that the creation, use, and sale or offer thereof of a patented object is known in advance by the infringer. It is very clear, in cases of pre-seed patentability what is and isn't patented (almost always accompanied by a patent number, just for clarification).

It would be hard, if not impossible, I would claim, for Monsanto to prove that these farmers knowingly used patented technology without authorization to grow their crops. I would also point out that because of the one-sided nature of both the grant of these patents (in that Monsanto can get any seed it wants, essentially, patented and that nobody but them can distinguish patented seed from naturally occurring seed) that Monsanto has the capability through simple sabotage to force unwitting persons into infringing on their patent. The sheer awkwardness of this position (and from what we know, historically, about what has happened, what is very likely the case) should leave much doubt into the validity of these patent claims. Further, it should bring a great deal of speculation into the legality of the patent provisions made for seeds and for infringement made without a reasonable possibility of knowledge of use or transfer of patented materials. I argue, that unless Monsanto followed every single grain of corn from every plant grown from a Monsanto seed, that they have no rights to the specific litigation and "damages" they construe certain farmers caused them. Sp

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[Curunir_wolf]

The "synthetic chemicals" part has to do with adjuncts added to the soil, not the growing seed, so I don't think that would apply. But, as I'm reminded, Federal bureaucrats always provide their own interpretations of laws in the Federal Register, and enforce the law based on those rules, not the way consumers or businesses interpret them. The applicable version is found here, and states, in part:

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.’’

So I'm convinced that the USDA will exclude any kind of GMO crop from certification as "organic".

Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but

[interkin3tic]

The scary thing is that the scientific studies that are peer reviewed about gmo's is shockingly close to zero.

But they are greater than zero. They do typically test the basic, obvious safety concerns. Are GMOs toxic? No. Do they cause cancer? Difficult to test for obviously, but I haven't heard of a positive result on that.

There are some interesting studies I've heard of looking at all the metabolites produced by GMOs and comparing them to naturally produced varieties. The tests are showing that GMOs are much closer to the parental strain than the natural strains are to each other, which indicates there's nothing dramatically different about what you're eating.

Wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Wait!

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re:Wait!

[TFAFalcon]

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.

Re:Wait!

[andydread]

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.

Re:Wait!

[Nugoo]

She tries to be fair, but be aware it's very anti-Monstanto[...]

Theses two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:Wait!

[JobyOne]

Why bother with all the difficulty of real live things?

Just write poem, then a computer virus that places a copy of said poem onto the victim's hard drive and emails you their personal information.

Sue them for copyright infringement.

Profit.

PS: What the hell happened to mens rea? I was under the impression it was a necessary component for a great many crimes. Wouldn't this sort of copyright interpretation have some nasty side effects? Like you could be held accountable if you buy a book from the Kindle store and it turns out the person who uploaded it doesn't actually hold the copyright?

I suppose things like law and precedent (both past and future) go right out the window when the plaintiff has enough money.

Re:Wait!

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.

Re:Wait!

[sg_oneill]

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.

I think your focusing on the wrong thing. I understand from an eco-systems point of view why GM can be a hazardous thing by creating over-successful eco-system invaders (like grasses that wipe out native species etc), but GM itself isn't an inherent harm. We've been at it as a species since we first started selectively breeding plants and animals. This is kind of the next level stuff.

The problem with GM is twofold
1) Creating dependence on harmful pesticides that are themselves probably far worse for the eco-system than anything inherent to the plant itself. This has been an environmental wrecking-ball in places like argentina

and

2) Creating dependency in third world countries on seed providers who sell terminator seeds meaning that traditional self-sufficiency practices like seed-saving become worthless, and are replaced with a situation where desparately poor people have to pay ridiculous annual fees to monsanto where in the past they paid none. This creates essentially a privatized taxation on farming practices and thats economically *very* harmful for poverty stricken third world people.

GM could be a godsend to the third world. Higher yields and better nutrition could save literally millions of lives. But at the hands of companies like monsanto its being turned into a weapon against the poor and the middle class, and thats a very bad thing.

Couldn't happen to a nicer corporation!

[h4x354x0r]

300,000 plaintiffs... Monsanto has made a lot of enemies with their tactics. He who lives with the lawsuit...

Patents on LIVING things are total bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Something we all should be concerned about...

[benjamindees]

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.

Re:Something we all should be concerned about...

[Sloppy]

The intellectual property arguments are obvious, but more concerning is the health risks

Can we all just agree that there's something for everyone to hate here, without the my-hate-is-more-justified-than-yours competition?

Re:Something we all should be concerned about...

[Fjandr]

It's way easier than that. All they need is to get one farmer in a region to use their seed, and the wind does the rest.

Take this with a grain of salt

[HtR]

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.

Re:Take this with a grain of salt

[Pecisk]

It's a Russian's goverment foreign propaganda arm, so it usually tries to shoot down Western views on Syria, Egypt, Libya - you name it. But this news bit seems to be legit. This is definitely screwed up situation. I hope that company gets it's lesson well.

Re:Take this with a grain of salt

[Ihmhi]

A lot of RT's "propaganda" is also reporting on the stuff that the American media blacks out. Sure there's spin and BS, but it's no different than nearly every other news source in America.

Reminds me of Sins of a Solar Empire a bit...

Re:Take this with a grain of salt

[rtb61]

Get real, it is simply a Russian for profit multilingual tabloid, without ties to major US corporations, hence has no qualms about sticking it to US corporations. Of course they do tread lightly in Russian politics.

Off uniquely Russian political stance, you either sought power through wealth or through politics but not through both, to do both invites a more aggressive permanent solution to your excessive ego. In the interim http://rt.com/business/news/russia-privatization-1990-legitimacy-915/.

So is RT better or worse than US mass media, truth is, it is far better and nothing to do with politics, simply lacking ties to many multinational corporations it can stick it too them. I expect it will eventually be bought out and tow the psychopath corporate line.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] 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.

It's obvious to me

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:It's obvious to me

[JobyOne]

We also seem to have lost mens rea. Where's the "guilty mind" when a farmer's crops are cross-pollinated by his neighbors', the same as every other year since the dawn of time?

Re:It's obvious to me

[microbox]

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 courts disagreed. It is truly absurd, but Monsanto then forces farmers to burn all their seed (which is a competing technology, local to the particular farm or community) and then you gotta buy from the big seed guys.

Re:It's obvious to me

[ChrisMaple]

The problem is not that "Monsanto then forces farmers to burn all their seed", if that were the case, a farmer would be completely justified in putting a bullet through a Monsanto employee's head. The problem is that Monsanto is using courts to create this travesty of justice, and that the farmer has no recourse but to find a way to fight back through the legal system.

Re:It's obvious to me

[Ost99]

But there would had to be some kind of negligence on your part for them to win.

How can you be liable if there are no actions taken on your part to create the situation, and no reasonable measures you can take to prevent it?

Re:Did they buy the seed because of the added feat

[andydread]

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.

whoa, man, like, go _natural_

[Onymous Coward]

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?"

Re:whoa, man, like, go _natural_

[Ihmhi]

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...)

Re:whoa, man, like, go _natural_

[Onymous Coward]

Addressing the lot of responses...

Eating poison ivy or fire: Co-evolution with a species is critically dependent on the manner of interaction between the species. That is, using a plant as a poison for millennia does not mean it's also safe to eat. It does mean it's likely to be a good poison.

Modern crops are different from older species, just by hybridization/breeding: Yes. But they're based on the genes of crops that have co-evolved with humans, using a process that's also naturally occurring (though using it somewhat artificially). And they may indeed be lacking benefits afforded by progenitor cultivars and species. Likely no one tested the resulting breeds for the subtle (and certainly not the unknown) benefits of the original species when selecting their "successes". Older species are probably better for you, generally, if not as tasty or pretty.

Many or most modern food plants are a novelty to any given person's ancestry: True, but not a novelty to humans in general. So the question here is how much pressure is put on the humans to evolve versus the crops? Also, there are differences between what foods different races can tolerate.

What's precaution and what's science-stifling irrational fear:

Yes, absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence....but in the absence of hard evidence, how are the opponents of GMO any different that the opponents of vaccination?

As stupid as that may sound at first, there is actually a very important concept being asked about. What's prudent and what's ignorantly fearful?

We need to weigh several factors. The possibility and degree of benefit. The possibility and degree of harm. The amount of knowledge we have about the topic. The amount of knowledge we have about the scope of the topic. (Rumsfeld's "known knowns" and "unknown unknowns" idea.) My review of these leaves me on the side of playing it safe.

The primary wildcard that makes me sit up and pay close attention to folks playing with the genes of food crops is the fact that "Life finds a way." Crops breed out of our control. We've seen it already with GMO. If you're not using a time-tested method for changing crop genes (breeding, for example), you want to figure out more clearly what kind of results you'll be making. Fuck it up in a bad way and the "life finds a way" factor could leverage your mistake into a catastrophe.

But, even if life does tend to find a way, I'd be for scientists experimenting with Frankenstein GMO crops in tightly controlled environments, and testing the results over the course of a couple generations of test subjects. But I guess that's infeasible.

Likely we'll all be test subjects. And then we'll just have to wait a few generations to iron out the big problems, and a few hundred generations to smooth out the relationship, and a few hundred more generations to polish it out to a beautifully symbiotic sheen.

What are they farming?

[TimothyDavis]

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.

COUNTERSUE!

[mmell]

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.

Re:COUNTERSUE!

[Petbe]

Oh oh but Monsanto does go out of their way! They use nets... and yeah, they use nets. Oh, have I ever told you that Monsanto uses nets. Surprisingly, crops still continue to get infected by Monsanto seeds. I would break out laughing if not for my crying in the inside when ever I hear how Monsanto is being so ethical and helping to feed the world.

Re:COUNTERSUE!

[Solandri]

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.

Re:COUNTERSUE!

[HangingChad]

Why, there might even be some (extremely major) criminal liability on Montsanto's part.

Maybe, but remember they have a former Monsanto staff attorney on the Supreme Court who doesn't see any conflict ruling on Monsanto cases.

Sue them for damaging private property

[tizan]

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
.

Re:Sue them for damaging private property

[TimTucker]

My neighbor's dog come into my yard and damage my yard...my neighbor has to pay for restitution

Except Monsanto didn't plant it or own the original seed, a neighboring farmer did. If your neighbor's dog digs up your yard, the dog's owner is liable, not the pet store where he bought it.

Except from Monsanto's perspective the neighboring farmer doesn't own the seed -- he just licenses it.

Say we modify the analogy a little -- assume the neighbor's dog is attacking someone in your yard.

If the pet store knows the dog has a history of attacking people and rents the dog to your neighbor without telling him of the dog's history, who should be liable when the dog attacks someone?

Re:Sue them for damaging private property

[ChromeAeonium]

Let's just say I grow Red Kuri squash. I get a premium for it. Then my neighbor grows Blue Hubbard. It cross pollinates. My seed is now a hybrid, no longer the pure OP line. What if I grow seedless citrus, then my neighbor grows some citrus of another variety. they cross pollinate, now I have seeds in my citrus. Should I have the right to sue? I don't think so. Cross pollination is cross pollination, and it doesn't just apply in GE crops. What if I grow rice and have a special market for people who believe science is evil and don't want the naturally occurring sd-1 gene 'contaminating' their rice, and my modern variety growing neighbor's plants cross with mine and now sd-1 is expressed in some of my rice? Why is it that farmers have been able to deal with these problems for years, then organic growers come along and suddenly there's talk of lawsuits? Think about what being able to sue for cross pollination really means. It's absolutely absurd if you know anything about agriculture.

Re:Did they buy the seed because of the added feat

[AK Marc]

"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".

Ethical standpoint

[Petbe]

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).

Is there a more mainstream news source for this?

[Picass0]

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.

doomsday

[alienzed]

when a company can sue a farmer for growing crops. I don't care how, where, when and why.

A couple questions

[quantaman]

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?

Re:A couple questions

[Yvan256]

And what I mean is that over time, that 5% will turn into the 95% because of cross-polination, voluntary or not.

In the end, you won't be able to find non-Monsanto crops anywhere.

Re:A couple questions

[ChromeAeonium]

1) As I understand, they usually catch people when they buy large amounts of Round-Up and spray in on their field. Then the anti-GMO people take their side and claim that the cross-pollination was accidental and happened unknowingly. I suppose it was just a weird coincidence that the farmers in question were spraying their field with something that kills all but plants with the gene Monsanto put in. Those lawsuits are not all that common, and they don't just happen, but they do make great exaggerated talking points for anti-agricultural science groups.

2) Personally, I'd advocate public research. I don't think plant patents are all that bad. First, plant breeders deserve to make a living too. Luther Burbank, whose potato varieties we still use to this day, made a relatively modest living despite the huge contributions to agriculture he made as a result of not having control over his work. I think there's something wrong with that. Second, some very good plants would not be around were it not from the royalties from patents. My all time favorite apple, Snowsweet,would not exist were it not for the profits from other patented apple varieties (like Honeycrisp) supporting the breeders. If we had more publicly funded research, breeders could work without having to worry about patents, and everyone else could use plants without having to worry about those issues too, like an open source type model. Unfortunately, agricultural funding is being slashed in universities across the nation for some stupid reason well beyond my comprehension (well, actually, I think I do understand it. We have so much food in developed countries and farming is so efficient that who even thinks about agriculture anymore?), and when it comes to genetically engineered seeds, the regulations are so moronically strict and the hoops so costly to jump through that the companies must ensure they make a profit. So, unless we do have more 'open source' publicly funded research, this is what we've got, and if we don't like it we've really no one to blame but ourselves for being so damned ignorant about agriculture.

Legal?

[Mullen]

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?

It's as much about contracts

[caseih]

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.

Re:Did they buy the seed because of the added feat

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Monsanto's Dirty Tricks

[mouse_8b]

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)

Re:Monsanto's Dirty Tricks

[will_die]

There were no monsanto employees caught doing any of that. The story came about because someone monsanto sued made that claim saying he did not plant the fields of seeds but that monsanto did it at night as his defense.
Also the illegal planting looks to be some what true. Monsanto has been looking to get thier seeds made legal in India as a test case they went to an government agency and as for permission for a test case and got the approval. It turned out it was the wrong agency becuase the agency did not have approval to grant the test case so Monsanto did plant seeds illegally after being told they were legal to do so.
There is another case from India that the various uninformed sites like to make as illegal planting. Monsanto got approval from the local government, the government then changed the law saying it was illegal planets where then illegal it was then overturned and the original law saying they could plant was put back in case. So for a period of time monsanto did have illegal plants.

60 family farms

[gnaac]

"270,000 organic farmers from around 60 family farms" Thats 4,500 farmers per family. Must be keeping busy on those cold winter nights.

Hmmm. Patenting life!?!

[midifarm]

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?

herbicide resistance and roundup use

[pikine]

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.

Re:Is there a more mainstream news source for this

[fiannaFailMan]

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.

They will not lose their shirts, we will

[Taco Cowboy]

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"

Re:Is there a more mainstream news source for this

[macklin01]

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

Re:Is there a more mainstream news source for this

[Forty Two Tenfold]

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.