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.'"
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?
Being able to patent seeds is more bullshit than being able to patent software.
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.
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
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
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) -
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?
If "something growing alone by itself" is the same as you building it in your house :-)
But GMO crops didn't just "grow alone" by themselves. The infringing farmers took concerted action, over several years, to isolate and propagate the seeds, and then benefited from the patented gene by spraying their fields with glyphosate. That is something that someone who believed they had non-GMO seeds would not do, because it would kill their crop. .
I am no fan of Monsanto, but this is a very one-sided statement. These farmers knew full well that they were planting GMO seed, they knew that Monsanto had a patent on it, and they took full advantage of the GMO by
Wait, you didn't read the article did you...
However, farmers are able to buy excess soybeans from local grain elevators, many of which are likely to be Roundup Ready seeds. One of Bowman's trips to such a grain elevator put him in Monsanto’s sights. ...
Monsanto has claimed it maintains patent rights on its genetically modified seeds, even if sold by a third party such as a grain elevator. The company also said this protection extends for generations down, which means it owns seeds that are 'descendants' of original Monsanto seeds.
So one bag of Monsanto derived grain in every grain elevator means (to your way of thinking) that Monsanto hence forth owns all see stock in the entire country? Or the entire planet? Forever?
Genetic modification isn't the only way to make new crops. Cross breeding (the original form of genetic modification) also works. Does this mean the University of Minnesota owns every Honey Crisp apple seed in the world?
I suspect you strongly believe in the first sale doctrine when it comes to books, records, and video games, but some how this is different?
Have you really thought this through?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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
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?
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.
The infringing farmers took concerted action, over several years, to isolate and propagate the seeds, and then benefited from the patented gene by spraying their fields with glyphosate.
Since it isn't mentioned in either of TFAs I'll take your word for it. But I don't believe the issue is that they had or didn't have a strain of Monsato's designed food. The question is, who owns the second generation of seeds?
They way I understand it, you patent a process. I'm pretty sure Monsato didn't patent farming, and growing. So what process did these farmers break?
I own a farm. I do not buy seed from Monsanto. Never have. I refuse to on moral grounds. Yet I am sued by Monsanto every 2 to 4 years. Their "inspectors" trespass on my property, collect samples from 50 to 200 plants, and if only ONE has their GMO dna, I get sued. The farmer next to me buys exclusively Monsanto seed.
You figure it out. I have.
In the near future, anyone found on my property that doesn't have permission to be there... well, it won't be pretty.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.