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.'"
That is, in this case, a good point. Here farmers were knowingly replanting seed they had purchased.
However, while I do not know if it has come up in US courts, there have been instances of Monsanto claiming that farmers who simply have their seeds in their field, even through natural spreading, owe them a fee. If nothing else, they can supply samples as evidence of theft simply because in most cases there is way to differentiate between something like theft or replanting from natural spreading, they only have to show the farmer was benefiting from their GMO.
So I will admit, I tangented from this particular case.
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
When farmers purchase Monsanto seeds, they sign a contract and agree, in writing, not to save seed.
No, when farmers purchase Monsanto seeds from MONSANTO they sign a contract like that. This case has nothing to do with that scenario.
This guy bought seed from the local grain elevator - seed that was sold on the open market without Monsanto's involvement and no advertising that the seed was monsanto tainted seed. He had no contract with Monsanto for those seeds or any of their precursors.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'm not. If it grew on my land, it's mine... Case closed
Sadly, no, not in the USA. Search and you'll find plenty of cases where farmers planted their own seeds and got their fields infected with GMO from the farm next to it or something like that. These are farmers who did not kill everything but GMO in their fields with Roundup.
If I was growing natural seeds and my land got infected by Monsanto then I would assume that Monsanto owed me for damages. But not in the USA
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser says that:
"He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998"
So perhaps you could use your superior search engine skills to find an actual, real example of a farmer being sued by Monsanto that did not intentionally harvest and plant patented seeds?
Actually I believe that you're wrong. Monsanto authorizes their seed progeny to the elevators. The farmer that sold his seed to the grain elevator was allowed to do so contractually. Another farmer subsequently purchased seed from the grain elevator, with the Monsanto seed mixed in, and planted it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/09/soybean-farmer-monsanto-supreme-court
\r
This is the boiler-plate canned response from Monsanto Public Relations when they get called out on their GMO contaminating non GMO and organic fields and abusing patents to intimidate small farmers and seed cleaners out of business. Its boilerplate give it a rest already. People aren't going to swallow you PR attempt here. If I could avoid purchasing products based on Monsanto products I would. These people are slime.
> you will find precisely zero cases where this happened. If you want to prove me wrong, then cite one case where a farmer was sued for unintentional infringement.
See Percy Schmeiser's struggle against Monsanto (which took several years) here:
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
"Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola." Then Monsanto sued him.
I cannot think of a more evil and greedy corporation than Monsanto and the likes. I thank God I live in a part of Europe where no GM crops are allowed.
http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
I would go through the trouble of going down the list, but Google already exists.