Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Takes Home $23m From Small Farmers According To Report
An anonymous reader writes "Seed giant Monsanto has won more than $23 million from hundreds of small farmers accused of replanting the company's genetically engineered seeds. Now, another case is looming – and it could set a landmark precedent for the future of seed ownership. From the article: 'According to the report, Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta together hold 53 percent of the global commercial seed market, which the report says has led to price increases for seeds -- between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent.'"
And that's about all you have to say.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Why is it that today almost every story on Slashdot is about our frog-in-slowly-heated-water society.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Need I say more?
No, I'm not saying they're going to bring about the zombie apocalypse, but what I am saying is that they're as evil as the Umbrella Corporation, and perhaps more so.
Is their engineered seed so much better that it's worth the 300% price hikes?
I am sure most people are aware of and angry about monsanto's practices and products, but I am tired of just being angry and talking to my friends who all agree...what can we do about it? Even the progressive wonderland of Ca cant get a simple GMO labling law passed, is there anything anyone can DO to change it?
Letters to Congress - HAH, they are paid for already.
Stop buying their product - Cant, no way to tell what it is in...
Go Organic: and pay $15 / Lb for fruit at Whole Paycheck, er uh Foods? no thanks...
So what can we DO?
Cue the GM industry shills who will explain why this is a good thing and the farmers are evil criminals.
When they aren't astroturfing for the fracking industry they do it for Monsanto.
Here's what I don't get. Monsanto sold the original seeds for the purpose of growing corn. The corn is sold by the farmer. So, apparently the farmer has the right to whatever the seeds produce.
But then they turn around and claim ownership of the same corn, but only because it is used to plant more crops, rather than selling the corn for consumption. This seems ridiculously inconsistent, and I am amazed that ANY court has ruled in favor of Monsanto.
It seems that Monsanto screwed up by selling a self replicating product. Maybe they should have thought of a better business model, or written up some type of contract with the farmers for future crop plantings...
Monsanto' marketing is bullshit covering lies and shows just how dumb humans are when it comes to short term thinking...
A few years after they cornered the market, their product's main feature of reducing the need for pesticides has gone away as more weeds have picked up the round-up resistance. If anything, all the farmers should sue for false marketing as the product is now requiring just as much or more pesticides to kill the superweeds that it has created.
Any good lawyers out there want to make money?!?!
Can't someone just assassinate the Monsnto execs and be done with it?
a revolution.
One word for this: disgusting.
Between 1995 and 2011 the prices of gold has risen 310%. In other words, the price of planting an acre has remained constant in terms of real money.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Develop and patent gene. Release gene into wild. Sue hapless farmers who's crops are infected with Monsanto's patented jumping genes. Soon no one will be able to grow anything without a multinational giving consent and taking a big cut. That is a world I don't want to live in. It's needs to stop right now!
How cute.
Reality is much more evil.
between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent.
Doesn't that average out to about 10% increase a year? How much of that is normal inflation and how much is Monsanto being greedy?
So God made a farmer to sue.
Monsanto is still evil. More on this and other stories after this commercial break.
Farmers should sue MONSANTO because their seed contaminate farmers seed, they should keep control of their modified seeds.
Oils companies have to pay when they contaminate water, sea, soil, etc.
MONSANTO must pay because their seeds contaminate farmer's farms.
PD. englihs is not my native language, I hope you understand the point.
When Monsanto an others dictate food prices, I hope you are still as happy.
/. is smarter than the average pond?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
There is a documentary on Netflix on this worthless company named Monsanto. Monsanto is nothing but worthless Bullies that need castrated.
Better story at npr, please stop linking to RT.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/15/162949288/farmer-tackling-monsantos-seed-policy-gets-a-day-in-supreme-court
'He also took advantage of the gene. It allowed him to spray Roundup (or a generic version of the same weedkiller), which made controlling weeds relatively cheap and easy.'
If you are buying leftover seed and harvested seed it's one thing. If you spray it with Roundup, you are using it as Roundup-ready seed and you are thus utilizing the value of Monsanto's invention. Why should you not pay for the enhanced features of Monsanto's seed if you use them?
If you don't use them, the Monsanto doesn't sue. So you can buy and harvest seed, just use it as regular seed, not Roundup-ready seed.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Some corporations have a slightly different version of the Google motto...
socialism!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So US Corn production was ~10bln bushels last year, and sold at $8/bushel. That's $80 billion dollars. Or 80,000 million dollars. That's last year alone. This article counts multiple years for those lawsuits and that $23million. That's 23/80000. This doesn't include soybean(The article does include soybean in that $23million).
Also, Corn is not saved and replanted. Why? Because you get inbreeding depression. You lose a lot of bushels per acre, and purchasing new seed is a better business option. Also, new hybrid varieties come out every so many years that are genetically resistant to pests, usually coming from a low-producing but resistant variety that has been back-crossed into the elite performing line(this takes many generations and several years). This is especially important for things you can't spray for (viruses, fast acting bacteria on sensitive days, such as flowering). So for multiple reasons you don't save seed.
Soybean is easier to save, but not done as often because it is not packaged the same if you save it. Saved seeds are usually coated with fungicide and other protective chemicals(they even have organic versions coming out for organic seed production, hopefully in the next few years, organic agriculture is big business now and increasing crop yield is as high on their list as it is on any industrial farm, and many organic farms are industrialized now).
Soybean does have inbreeding depression, but it is not as severe as corn for a variety of reasons I won't go into here.
As far as accidental contamination and being sued by Monsanto? 81 organic farmers sued to prevent this, but since all the violations before had been due to consciously planting Monsanto seed without an existing agreement, and 0 had been for accidental insect or wind based contamination, the judge threw it out. That's right, Food Inc lied to you. Most of that movie has been debunked, actually. There are better ways to learn about organic farming, sustainable farming, and industrial farming than a highly biased documentary.
Monsanto produces seed that they cannot control. Cross-pollination contaminates even the most carefully selected organic crops. The plants produce a product that is essentially the sum of the egg and pollen, which means it contains Monsanto's infection. Monsanto then trespasses on the farmers' properties, stealing "samples", waits 2 years so the farmers have no way to prove their innocence, then sues them for every last penny they have. This is their MO and is essentially making a process (seed reuse) used for countless thousands of years, illegal.
In any civilized world, the farmers would be able to sue Monsanto over the infection and loss of a valuable crop. Instead, they're ruined.
Think any of this is made up? You need to read the lawsuits and not Monsanto's propaganda.
Think the goal of the genetic modifications is high yield? You need to read more on that too... Google "roundup-ready"... Its there for one purpose, so they can dump megadoses of roundup (poison) onto the crops without killing them.
Think my use of "infection" is out of line? Read up on the process. They took a gene they discovered in a bacteria and used a virus to insert it into the plant's genes.
Notice I used the word "discovered" and not "invented"... They did not invent the gene that they patented, but then that's true of many of their patents. They've patented many naturally occurring plants and animals. Yes, animals (google Germany Monsanto large hogs).
For those who don't believe the contamination is out of control, google "wild canola Monsanto percentage" (if you're too lazy, 86% of "wild" canola has at least one modified gene from Monsanto, and many have two (2nd from another company), which means multiple generations of contamination). This is complete and total loss of control of a contagion. It won't be long before wild canola is extinct.
The fact that this company has not been brought up on countless charges for the above actions is beyond comprehension.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
I don't really like Monsanto but it seems to me from a legal standpoint they are suing the wrong person. It sounds like a flaw in their licensing. They don't just need to get signatures from farmers but also from those they sell to such that they will not sell the product for replanting. This obviously needs to go all the way down to even customers in supermarkets. A good thing for customers that GMO labeling.
It is possible that the court could even allow continued generations of crops for future seeds so long as whomever sells the seeds in the future does not use genetic testing for seed selection. Should end up with at least 95 percent equivalent seed for farmers using roundup.
And 23 million? Seems like an awfully small number. But I really don't expect them to collect very much money as most of the farmers will likely go bankrupt just like the guy getting sued in the article. Given the solution that Monsanto just needs to get everyone in the supply chain to agree not to replant I think the US Supreme Court will let it go.
And it's wrong that if there were no genetic patents that GMO's would not be developed. I think farmer organizations as a group would invest in research and development. And McDonald's and other large commercial chains would also likely invest as it would reduce the costs of their suppliers.
What about open sourced seeds?
Of course can't be source code, but a company could exist that produces GE or just Sane well chosen seeds to be used free by whoever like to use them. Instead of being in the free market to compete in the capitalist model, that hypothetical company could be founded by governments and/or non lucrative organisations that don't collect money has the huge corporations do.
How much did production costs per unit bushel go down? How much did yield per acre increase?
But there are plenty of privately held seed banks and organizations both in the US and globally where you can get non-Monsanto controlled seeds.
All I can say is ... those greedy bastards... they OWN the patent to Roundup, right? So why do they need to charge coming and going??? why can't they just let the gene get into whatever seeds it can and then just make a killing selling Roundup since everyones crops will already be "Roundup Ready"?
Noooooo! that's not the greediest possible stance... they have to get you coming and going and then sue folks who end up with their seeds on their farms due to ... contamination?
Seriously, this is everything that is wrong with our patent laws and our wholesale selling of our government to big business. /GAH!
The Digital Sorceress
Yvonne Lee, Community Manager at Dice.com writes,
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
If Monsanto gets that much, I can give a discount on mine. Just stand back as I don't claim that I can aim very well.
The patents on roundup ready crops are sound because Monsanto was able to introduce genes not standard to corn and soybeans that make them glyphosate resistant. This is no different than pharma companies being able to combine and create molecules and sell them. Court rulings agree
In addition to round up resistance, GMOs have other traits (drought, disease, and pest resistance) that make them lower maintenance (cost) and easier to grow. Traditionally farmed non-organic fields are sprayed dozens of times a year for various reasons. GMOs need less of this and can yield more in non-irrigated farmland, which is most areas. This explains the jump in seed costs after you remove the 16 year inflation element from the 325 percentfrom the article. Yields across the board are also up 37% over the same span, and i would suspect that GMOs beat that average.
If you read the briefs, in a lot of these cases innocent farmer joe(who plants on 5000 acres) didnt realize he was planting inadvertently polinated gmo seed..... even though he later bought 50000 gallons of roundup and sprayed his field with it in the middle of growing season and didnt go bankrupt from all of it dying. Try again sheep.
Farmer Joe is doing it all wrong and Monsanto is providing the tools. At least Joe is acting in ignorance, (probably believes grains are good, that is). As destructive as that may be, at least there is no malevolent intent.
Meanwhile, I encourage all those who believe that patenting life is okay to consume more grain products and soda pop.
Dorner could have had a better target than the LAPD. Like Monsanto.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
There are lots of non GM soybeans around and they are cheap.
Why do famers buy expensive GM seeds then?
Because they are better. You make more money when you plant GM seed.
Farmers are not dumb.
Monsanto needs to do their job and make it so the farmers can't re-use the seed. Buying laws to aid their business model? That's bullshit.
In Argentina, farmers have the right to replant seeds generated in a plantation of monsanto seeds, without paying royalties to Monsanto. Life should not be subject to patents, ever.
Quote from Pagina/12 newspaper: ‘Los granjeros argentinos tienen derecho a replantar –no a revender– semillas generadas en una cosecha originada en semillas registradas sin pagar regalías, pero no a venderlas’, dice un cable de marzo del 2006 firmado por el entonces embajadorLino Gutiérrez”, explicó el editor jefe de Página12.
"hey took full advantage of the GMO by spraying their crops with glyphosate. "
Monsanto didn't put a kill switch in their seeds. They could have done. If they have a catastrophic failure of the crop due to some Monsanto shortcoming, I hope that Monsanto are equally liable for the losses.
Because ultimately Monsanto have contaminated the seed pool with seeds containing a natural reproduction step.
"To portray these farmers as poor victims of pollen spread by the wind is baloney."
No, they took a crop that resisted the pesticide and replanted it. This is how farming works. Did Monsanto offer a free test of their field for contamination and compensation for killing any cross contamination? No.
You're equating superior with GMO as though planting superior is the same as planting a GMO crop. He did what farmers do, and kept back and planted the seeds that grew well for the next crop.
What if the seeds weren't Monsanto's? What if they were just superior seeds? As all prior improvements in crop yields have been? You know, that evolution thing the Republicans are so against?? The way farmers have always done it?
What if they were seeds from some other patent holder? Is he now supposed to test for every patent holders genetics before sowing a seed that does better?
Monsanto did not offer any free test of seeds, nor compensation to replace contaminated seeds with non Monsanto contaminated seeds. They also didn't put a kill switch in their seeds so farmers would have to buy from them each season.
If you buy Monsanto seeds they'll make you a bigger profit, most of which is grabbed back by Monsanto. Your gain is small. It could well be your gain would be bigger simply by cultivating the better (but non Monsanto) seeds, as this farmer did. But now he has an extra burden of genetic tests on seeds to check they're not Monsanto contaminated!
He did what farmers do, yet not, because of these crappy patents, he has to spend money to avoid contaminated seeds.
Now the situation gets worse with evolution, because crops from one patent holder will cross pollinate with crops from another, and mutate. Monsanto and others will try to claim every mutation as there's too.
Can I remind you that Monsanto's change was to make the crop more resistant to Monsanto chemicals, and most likely less resistant to other problems as a result. Since it's more dedicated to resisting Monsanto's.
Will they pay compensation for any damage they've done, when it turns out they've done damage?
http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
I would go through the trouble of going down the list, but Google already exists.
There are 2 issues with what the Monsanto mob is doing;
First of all, they pollute neighbouring fields and then charge farmers for it (the reason farmers lose this is IMHO because Monsanto can afford more expensive lawyers/politicians).
Secondly, NOBODY should ever get a monopoly on the food chain, especially not if it is based on GM. They're not the only ones jockeying for that position, Nestle is apparently busy buying up water sources.
In many ways they remind me of the tobacco industry.. Bury evidence and keep those with better ideas busy in court.
'Bill Gates dumps another $10 million into researching new GM crops for agricultural takeover of Africa '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18845282
http://www.naturalnews.com/036561_Bill_Gates_GM_crops_Africa.html
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Hypothetical: I've got my plants on my property. I use them for seeds. I've used them for seeds for years. Now, the wind brings Monsanto crap onto my property and because of that Monsanto crap my crops are generating seeds that are patented by Monsanto. I don't want Monsanto crap on my property, but I need the seeds for next year.
Why isn't this a nuisance at law? They're fucking polluting my land with their patent crap.
Can anybody explain the theory how Monsanto gets away with this? This is more fucking bullshit than my poor brain can stand.
Food, Inc. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/
Show me a graph of seed prices and spot prices for crops, indexed to 1995.
Then I'll believe this is a "screw the farmer" issue.
Add in land values for shits and giggles and I'll show you a bunch of hidden millionaires.
"These farmers knew full well that they were planting GMO seed .. and they took full advantage of the GMO by spraying their crops with glyphosatea".
A farmer replants seeds from his own crop and is sued in court by the 'owners' of the genes. There are also cases of farmers who never bought Monsanto seeds getting sued because of cross contamination.
AccountKiller
Monsanto GM infecting farms in Germany:
2010: Monsanto's GM corn was discovered across 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) in seven German states. Since Germany doesn't allow GM corn to be planted, the farmers had to destroy their crops. These farmers had to "eat" their losses, as the seed companies refused to accept liability for the contamination.
Monsanto GM infecting farms in Spain:
2007: Pollen drift from GM maize (MON810) fields were found to have contaminated hundreds of conventional and organic farmers in Spain, the only country in the EU that allows GM maize to be cultivated.
Most if not all of the EU doesn't want Monsanto GM but it somehow manages to infect EU farms anyway.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I don't have any trouble getting seeds for my ten acre organic farm, probably different for the guy that grows your food.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I live in the suburbs, near a big city. I have a small lawn. I want to grow grass, and vegetables. I don't mind the weeds. I love weeds. Farming is not a mainstay in my state. It is not big business. Plenty of people here want to do organic, and biodynamic. We want to keep Monsanto completely OUT (yes, shouted) of our state. I don't want anything from Monsato growing on my property. I won't buy anything from them. Their suicide seeds blow in from somewhere, and grow in my yard. I wouldn't put it past them to show up at my place, say I stole their crop, sue me for $5,000,000, and take my house and all my worldly possessions, and leave me homeless. This is what they do. Anyone who thinks otherwise, has fallen for their bullshit. They are out to make food serfs out of everyone. That is reality. Somewhere in their corporate HQ, is a business plans, to make it impossible to avoid buying food that they have patented. You will owe them someday, for your fruit, your veggies, your eggs, your meat, everything. Their gene tech will be in everything, most people don't know, this is exactly what they want.
Anti competitive business practices are felonious crimes and ruin innocent peoples lives. Some of us care. YMMV
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Their GMO is like Ice-9.
The real problem here is the Monsanto cycles their employees through the US Government to ensure their interests are protected. Politicians are elected with the help of political donations from Monsanto. Next thing you know, executives from Monsanto are appointed to some position in the Department of Agriculture. They serve their time, then go back to Monsanto.
This is exactly the reason why farmers whose crops have been cross pollinated with GMO genes cannot sue Monsanto for damages. This is exactly why companies cannot stamp "GMO Free" on their products in many places.
It's fucking egregious. Monsanto creates a way to put the average farmer out of business through litigation. Privatized Megafarms then buy out the land from the out-of-business farms for a pretty cheap price. Megafarm then moves in it's own production on a scale 10x that of the previous owner. Chemicals and Bioengineering produce yields far superior to what that land was producing previously. Stock prices soar. Investors are happy. The company grows and cycle continues. Megafarm then monopolizes on both grown product as well as dictating "who holds the seeds". One company now controls the food supply and can basically set any price it wants regardless of quality.
In another 50 years, you won't even be able to plant Pansies without needing a license from Monsanto, Bill Gates, or the Rockefeller foundation. Yeah, Reddit. Tell me more about your hero Bill again.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Patent law does not apply to anything homemade by end users themselves, it only applies to commercial products.
Agent Orange.
"Life itself" is rather poorly defined at the molecular level.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
For the entire history of agriculture from the neolithic to the contemporary. Yes a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the planet's farmers still do it today.
Monsanto is greedy, therefore we can throw science out the window and irrationally run around terrified of GMOs because somehow greed = unsafe food?
@sFurbo [Sorry, I'd reply directly but the new Slashdot update does not work with IE9, and I have no alternative at the moment.]
Sorry the above twit has pissed me off by repeating the exact same thing. Why did the farmers use glyphosate on their fields?
The same reason they've been using RoundUp since the 1970s. When GMO grains really first came on the scene in the mid/late-90's. So 25 years of farmers using RoundUp before GMOs.
And a &*@#$% shrill like you keeps asking "Why did they spray glyphosate on their fields?" I'll answer you when you tell me why farmers used the stuff on their fields 25 years prior to GMO products?
*******
Glyphosate (Roundup) introduced in the 1970s
"Called by experts in herbicides "virtually ideal" due to its broad spectrum and low toxicity compared with other herbicides,[4] glyphosate was quickly adopted by farmers. Use increased even more when Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops."
Wait, why would farmers use Roundup before GMO roundup-resistant crops even existed? Unless you're a lying shrill for Mosanto.
The truth is, Roundup was used. Not at as high of levels. But guess what....ever heard of genetics/evolution/survival of the fittest?
Even before the advent of GMO corn. Farmers were essentially breeding their corn to be more resistant to glyphosate. So the idea to save each year that lot which showed itself to be most resistant is not an indicator of deliberate use of Mosanto seed.
It's sort of like me saving the seeds of those garden plants that survived drought conditions. As they're more drought hardy. Gee, farmers have been doing this since oh....give or take a few thousand years.
"[Round-up Ready GMO] crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds, but the development of similar resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem."
So there you have it, Mosanto wants you to believe that only the weeds are building resistance to Round-up. And that a farmer is insidious if they're trying to save their corn seed which shows the best glyphosate resistance.
Really, so weeds can naturally build resistance but a farmer should not expect his corn to do likewise?
If Mosanto's shrills can't understand basic natural selection. Mosanto should revoke their paychecks.
***
So lets go beyond corn?
85% of wild canola tested by a study was infected by GMO genes. Note, that this wasn't just self-propagation, but cross pollination. As GMO genes by two competing companies were discovered in a single plant specimen. And there is NO WAY that is possible outside of pollination infection.
How about sugar beets, organic beet farmers found their beets were infected by GMO. Harmed their business since they're organic and no way WANTED such. And sued, and yes a stay on GMO was enacted.
Yeah sure, MS does bad things. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really compare to the things Bill Gates is actually throwing money at. I'd much rather the money go to bigger problems than just crushing a silly software company.
Also... whose life has been ruined by Microsoft? This smells like hyperbole. Yes, they have some rather nasty business practices, but saying that someone life has been actually "ruined" is a bit much. I wasn't aware that Balmer had death squads.
Perspective. Nerds don't have it.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The judge is clearly paid for.
I wonder how the Sons of Liberty would respond to this in modern times.
They would probably burn all of the monsanto crops to the ground all over the country, and only the other farmers
Putting aside the issue of whether Monsanto is right or not, my real beef with seed patents is that all these lawsuits and bureaucracy are integrated into food production, along with all of its problems.
Food is a necessity, and no private company should be able to profit from it to such an extreme degree. I'd go as far as arguing it a human rights violation.
The way I've heard either this case or another like it (I did not read TFA) was:
Once upon a time farmers grew soybeans and sold them on the open market. Then Monsanto worked on developing a new type of soybean that grew better (more resistant to insects/took less water whatever) and charged for it. When buying soybeans in the open market you could choose to buy whatever beans were thrown in a big bin. So you may or may not get some modified beans. Originally this was only a small percent however, the beans proved to be so popular that almost all the farmers started to used them. This eventually resulted in a very high chance that most of the beans you bought from the big bin were the special Monsanto beans. However, since this wasn't guaranteed they are sold as "normal" beans and Monsanto doesn't get a cut. However, if 90% of the beans are now their special one should Monsanto get a cut even though these are 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gen beans? Should they only get paid once when the farmers first buy them? What happens when ALL the beans are the modified version?
Some cities and neighborhoods have been banning victory gardens under zoning and nuisance ordinances.
GreenBean http://www.greenbeandelivery.com/ is very affordable and allows consumers to connect with local farmers and to select organic produce. I actually spend LESS than my friends who shop at Kroger or Marsh.
Whole Foods is to food as Urban Outfitter is to clothes... to separate hipsters from mommy and daddy's money.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Okay, busted. It's all hype.
Anti competitive business practices are felonious crimes and ruin innocent peoples lives.
The law wasn't actually written because of Microsoft's felonious activities, and there may very well not be a causative link between tax-subsidized American maize and the global demise of family farms.
You got me.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Support PUBPAT. In regards to Monsanto...here are details of a case filed by PUBPAT....Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto
This could be a very large case for US law. Oral arguments were on January 10, 2013. You can download recording from US Court of Appeals (Federal).
My opinion is based on personal observation and random dubious sources, this guy has footnotes.
Controlling the world's food supply through GMO seed patents? Where's Daniel Craig when we need him?
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Torch Monsanto World Headquarter in St. Louis. Burn it to the ground and see if the fuzzy sock suckers get the message. At some point everyone working for Monsanto becomes a viable target. Glad I'm not a farmer or I'd be looking at the choice of lethal injection or electrocution for mass murder and there would be a lot of scared Monsanto employees.