Why is Monsanto so hated?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, well, I never said I see Monsanto as the only entity worth hating. And if it's making any difference, let me assure you that the Chinese government isn't getting any love from me. In fact, they're loathsome enough with or without this.

But, really, Monsanto doing the crap same thing that the Chinese government is doing too (the BT in wild maize in Mexico wasn't coming from China), is hardly something positive or exculpating them. "Only as bad as the PRC" -- for the environment or otherwise -- isn't something I'd put on my business card

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A virus would be the least of my problems, because of how viruses work. They need to bind to very specific proteins to even activate, much less to then spread. (See for example why bird flu could be transmitted bird to human, but almost never human to human.) Even inside the body, it is routinely the case that a few cells are attacked by the virus, but the others are effectively off limits.

So the chances of getting an epidemic out of a virus that specifically targets specific cels in a specific animal, even after a mutation or two are likely to be very slim.

In the case of GM plants, well, that's probably even less of a worry. Viruses that can get through a plant's cellulose walls have very specialized capsids, and pretty much can't attack anything else. Ditto for viruses which prey on bacteria, btw. But that's probably ok because we don't use viruses to modify plants.

We use bacteria and, well, I already ranted about that in this thread

Three words that should give you nightmares: Horizontal gene transfer^WP

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does anyone really think the world would be a better place if everything to do with Monsanto was destroyed? Seems to me there are always some good aspects to these megacompanies even if you need to watch them.

Well being shrunk to the size of an atom was fun, but like I said, I was glad I got out alive.

For you youngsters who don't know what I'm talking about: Adventures Through Inner Space

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Three words that should give you nightmares: Horizontal gene transfer^WP

Oh gee, I'm not touching that topic with a ten foot polearm any more

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What's more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers (and independent, non-GM farmers as well), taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation.

Those farmers who are in contracts with Monsanto, it seems plausible to me that these contracts include provisions allowing Monsanto to send agents to the farmer's field and collect samples. The “independent, non-GM farmers” would not be party to these contracts. If Monsanto is sending agents into these farmers' fields, to collect samples of thee farmers' crops, then what I want to know is why Monsanto and these agents are not being criminally prosecuted for trespassing, theft, and vandalism.

Furthermore, since the only evidence that Monsanto could have against these “independent, non-GM farmers” could only have been obtained by trespassing in these fields, and stealing from these farmers' crops, this evidence, being illegally-obtained, would not be admissible in court, so Monsanto wouldn't have any case to pursue.

 

[lomiller]

The “independent, non-GM farmers” would not be party to these contracts. If Monsanto is sending agents into these farmers' fields, to collect samples of thee farmers' crops, then what I want to know is why Monsanto and these agents are not being criminally prosecuted for trespassing, theft, and vandalism.

Furthermore, since the only evidence that Monsanto could have against these “independent, non-GM farmers” could only have been obtained by trespassing in these fields, and stealing from these farmers' crops, this evidence, being illegally-obtained, would not be admissible in court, so Monsanto wouldn't have any case to pursue.

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.

 

[Puppycow]

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.

If that's really the case then there's something seriously wrong with our legal system.
That's the equivalent of a protection racket.

 

[Galteeth]

If that's really the case then there's something seriously wrong with our legal system.
That's the equivalent of a protection racket.

Yup. The legal system in general favors those with money.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Anyone have court transcripts of these lawsuits? I can't imagine how this scenario actually would play out in front of a judge. I don't see how it could even result in a summons

 

[pipelineaudio]

Here's the findings of the monsanto case everyone talks about

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

Besides this obviously corrupt and incompetent Canadian legal system which, even when given the concept of "the stray bull" somehow found against the defendant, are there any other cases of Monsanto pulling this?

Where is all the hate that should be directed at the Canadian legal system for this?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.

I still just don't see how Monsanto is getting samples from farmers without committing criminal acts in order to do so. Lacking a legal search warrant (which would require probable cause) entering the farmer's fields without his permission is trespassing. Taking samples from that field is theft. Very likely, the farmer's plants would be damaged by the sample-taking, which would be vandalism. These are not civil offenses, for which the farmer would have to sue; these are criminal offenses, for which the farmer ought to be able to call the police, and have the offenders arrested and jailed.

 

[Almo]

Right, because everyone agrees that "downloading" means - to upload something

Go email your ISP and ask them why they advertise both an upload and download speed when in fact they are the same thing. Please paste their response here

I know this is way upthread, and my response may be a duplicate. But I have to say it:

Much filesharing, uses bittorrent. Usually when you use bittorrent, you upload as well as download. If you don't, your share ratio is low, and many clients will shun you. Therefore, in a colloquial sort of way, people who are downloading are many times uploading as well.

 

[lomiller]

I can't imagine how this scenario actually would play out in front of a judge. I don't see how it could even result in a summons

It’s a civil case, either you show up to defend yourself or they win by default. The way it plays out in front of a judge is that you have their genetics in your field, so you can’t sell the crop as that would violate their patent. “I didn’t intend to violate the patent” has never been a defence.

 

[lomiller]

I still just don't see how Monsanto is getting samples from farmers without committing criminal acts in order to do so. Lacking a legal search warrant (which would require probable cause) entering the farmer's fields without his permission is trespassing. Taking samples from that field is theft.

They don’t need samples to file a civil case. This isn’t like a criminal case where they need to establish probable cause. Once the case is filed they have a right to disclosure.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They don’t need samples to file a civil case. This isn’t like a criminal case where they need to establish probable cause. Once the case is filed they have a right to disclosure.

Without having at least probable cause, to start with, what you are describing is what is known as a “fishing expedition”—intrusively looking for evidence on the unfounded hope that one might thus discover evidence of an actionable offense. In U.S. law, at least, this is very highly frowned on. See the Fourth Amendment.

On the other hand, trespassing—entering someone's property without their consent and without a legally-valid warrant, is very much an actionable offense, for which the violator can be arrested and put in jail.

So is stealing.

And so is damaging someone else's property.

If Monsanto's agents are committing these acts, and are not being arrested and jailed for it, then something is very, very wrong here. And if they are using materials that they are obtaining by stealing and vandalism as evidence in subsequent legal actions, and not having these materials ruled inadmissible because they were illegally obtained, then again, there is something very wrong.

 

[lomiller]

Without having at least probable cause, to start with, what you are describing is what is known as a “fishing expedition”—intrusively looking for evidence on the unfounded hope that one might thus discover evidence of an actionable offense. In U.S. law, at least, this is very highly frowned on. See the Fourth Amendment.

The fourth amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can file a civil case or not.

On the other hand, trespassing—entering someone's property without their consent and without a legally-valid warrant, is very much an actionable offense, for which the violator can be arrested and put in jail.

Once again, when you have a case before the courts you have the right to request relevant information so there is no need for Monsanto to do anything to get samples; you would need to provide them.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I know this is way upthread, and my response may be a duplicate.

It is

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The fourth amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can file a civil case or not.

Once again, when you have a case before the courts you have the right to request relevant information so there is no need for Monsanto to do anything to get samples; you would need to provide them.

Well, one can request anything, under any circumstances. And the one of whom the request is made can decline to grant it. To compel an adversary to produce evidence requires a warrant or a subpoena. And this requires that one be able to show some compelling reason why one is entitled to the evidence in question. Warrants and subpoenas aren't routinely granted (or at least they are not supposed to be) just to support random, unsubstantiated fishing expeditions. If they were, then the Fourth Amendment would be rendered meaningless.

 

[lomiller]

Well, one can request anything, under any circumstances. And the one of whom the request is made can decline to grant it.

Incorrect. Once a lawsuit is filed they can request (almost) anything that can lead to evidence and if you don’t provide it you can be faced with fines or sanctions. Push it far enough and the judge may simply rule the whole case in their favour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...ons_Governing_Discovery.3B_Duty_of_Disclosure

Subdivision (b) is the heart of the discovery rule, and defines what is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is available for the other party to request, as long as it is not privileged or otherwise protected. Under §1, relevance is defined as anything more or less likely to prove a fact that affects the outcome of the claim. It does not have to be admissible in court as long as it could reasonably lead to admissible evidence.

To compel an adversary to produce evidence requires a warrant or a subpoena. And this requires that one be able to show some compelling reason why one is entitled to the evidence in question.

Again you seem to be confused. Warrants are elements of criminal law and do not apply to civil cases. You can subpoena someone in a civil case but I don’t imagine they would do so because if you don’t show up they pretty much win by default.

 

[jimtron]

If Monsanto's agents are committing these acts, and are not being arrested and jailed for it, then something is very, very wrong here.

Yeah, I think that's why they're hated by many (I think, I'm not an expert on this topic...)

ETA: I'm not familiar with this site, but there seems to be sourced information about the legal cases in question:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...vid:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers


And a Vanity Fair article on Monsanto (Monsanto's Harvest of Fear):
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

From one farm's point of view:
http://www.nelsonfarm.net/


From this site:

Monsanto has a toll-free line set up to accept calls from people who
suspect farmers of violating the company's rules. The company runs ads in
magazines and on the radio encouraging people to turn in those they suspect
of breaking a Monsanto contract. When the company gets a tip, it sends
detectives out to investigate. The detectives search farmers' fields and go
through documents to find out how much seed farmers bought and how much
grain they've sold, tying to ferret out those who save it.

Court documents show that one of Monsanto's detectives searched the
Mayfields' farm in 1998, taking samples from 1,261 acres of soybeans. All
the beans were determined to contain the Roundup Ready gene. According to
Monsanto, the Mayfields had signed a contract in 1998 stating that they
only planted about 800 acres of Roundup Ready. All those extra acres of
beans were grown from saved seed, the company charges.

According to court documents, Monsanto is suing the Mayfields for at least
$ 75,000, including punitive damages. "That's just an astronomical amount
for the amount we're farming," Mayfield said.