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
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?
Actually, it does pencil out. Hybred and genetically engineered seeds do produce signficantly higher yields, and in some cases reduce need for pestricides. They reduce risk by being drought resistant. Seed cost is just one of many costs of getting a crop into the ground and getting the harvest out. Fuel, fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, land rent (paid or opportunity cost) and labor all need to be accounted for.
Hybred seeds have been around for ages, and with maize, there is natural intellecual property protection, because the hybred is 'unstable', that is, you can't replant the seeds from the crop that you grow because the resulting maize plants are sterile and/or deformed. Of course, they can be stabalized with a final cross, but seed producers don't do that. Soy beans, OTOH, can not be produced in an unstable hybred. So a farmer can keep part of his bean crop and plant that as seed next year. With the advent of genetically modified soy seed, Monsanto quit *selling* soy seed, and started *licensing* soy seed.
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!
When you buy GM seed from Monsanto and others you sign a contract agreeing not to hold over seed for replanting. That take care of the legal responsibilities of Monsanto's customers.
In the case currently heading for the Supreme Court the farmer in question never planted GM seed purchased under contract. He unwittingly acquired GM seeds for use as a second planting by buying leftovers from local silos. Because all the granaries in the country are contaminated with GM seed it is effectively impossible to avoid buying product that doesn't "infringe" on someone's patents. That leaves a well meaning farmer with fields ready to be planted in a bit of a pickle if he doesn't want to pay the Monsanto tax.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Saving seed for replanting is not standard farming practice.
I grew up on a farm and we always saved at least some portion of each year's crop to plant the following year; you're pissing your money away otherwise. I can introduce you to any number of grain, bean or vegetable farmers who will tell you they do the same. Granted, certain varieties from large scale breeders won't grow as well the second year for any number of reasons but seed saving is very much a standard practice.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
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
Monsanto has control of most of the non-GMO seed market as well. If you want heirloom seed, chances are you'll be getting it from a subsidiary.
A lot fucking scarier than Bill Gates.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
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) -
Liar, liar, pants on fire. If you were representing the farmer in question, you would be disbarrred, since the farmer has admitted to planting GM seed, intentionally replanting GM seed, and "unwittingly" treating his crop with glycophosphate, which would kill any non-GM soybean. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Well-meaning farmer? Hardly. He knowlingly adopted his replanting practices and has (so far) lost.
Citation? How about looking at the crop yields from the Iowa farm my great-grandfather homesteaded. The citation is my brother's income tax return, he manages the farm now. Or the yields being produced by the tenants on my father-in-law's Minnesota farm. Next question?
And let me educate you on the food chain. Yellow corn is a feed grain, not a food grain. You don't eat it. It is eaten by the animals that you eat.
I agree chemical over-use is a problem. I'm more concerned about chemicals in the ground water and run-off. As far as that goes, borer-resistant maize allows a reduction in pesticide application for the control of borers. Another valid concern with GMO varieties is the creation of 'super-pests' that evolve immunity to GMO features. Iowa, at least, requires you to plant 20% "refuge rows" -- that is 20% of every field planted to, say, a borer-resistant variety, must be planted with a non-resistant variety so that the borer moths don't evolve immunity. Who came up with the 20% number, I don't know, I sure has heck hope it is right. If you're going to worry about something, worry about something real, not something made up.
And I don't defend Monsanto. Just trying to inject a few facts into the discussion. GMO crop seeds do make business sense to the farmers, or they would not be used. Do you honestly believe that people that run a business involving a multi-million dollar capital investment can't do the math?
http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
I would go through the trouble of going down the list, but Google already exists.
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