Why is Monsanto so hated?

[WildCat]

The "so what" is that you can end up being sued by Monsanto all the way to the Supreme court because your crop was cross pollinated with their genes.

Doubtful.

What American farmer grows his own seed anyway? Yours would be contaminated by crops from miles around, you wouldn't even know what you were growing and your plants would mature at different times.

eta: ever see a miniature corn plant growing in the middle of a soybean field? That's the kind of plant you get when your crop cross-breeds with other corn from nearby fields. A hybrid that is stunted and doesnt even resemble the parent crops. This is why farmers don't save corn to use as seed next year.

 

[WildCat]

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.

No, there wouldn't. This would only show up in the next generation, and no modern farmer is saving seed corn for next year's crop.

I grow peppers in my garden, and a common myth I hear is that you can't grow sweet peppers next to hot peppers because then the sweet peppers will be hot due to cross-pollination. It's absolute nonsense. A hot pepper can't make a sweet pepper hot any more than a white man can lighten the skin of a black woman by having sex with her. Likewise, genes from GM crops aren't going to show up in the DNA of the crop in the field adjacent to them.

 

[ThunderChunky]

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.

They have to prove you planted seed with their genetics. If you replant your seed every year and there was some contamination you would be guilty. But you wouldnt have to pay anything if you never took advantage of their genetics. That's what happened with Percy Schmeiser "The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year. No punitive damages or the costs of the technology use fee were awarded to Monsanto, as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola." (from wikipedia)

Actually, I cannot tell if he had to pay monsanto something for the infringement finding....

 

[ThunderChunky]

My claim never was that the transfer happened during feeding, but that those plasmids showed up in gut bacteria. And it does say they do.

They detected the transgene in the gut microflora only in the people with ileostomies. It was not detected in the people with intact guts. The transgene was detected at very low levels (1-3 copies per million bacteria). The bacteria carrying the transgene could not actually be isolated. And finally, only a portion of the transgene was detected, not the full length gene.

So, yes, in the guts of people with ilestomies it appears some DNA may be able to transform into the gut microflora (not too surprising). The transgene is not expected to be any different from other DNA sequences in this regard.

 

[GlennB]

No, there wouldn't. This would only show up in the next generation, and no modern farmer is saving seed corn for next year's crop.

I grow peppers in my garden, and a common myth I hear is that you can't grow sweet peppers next to hot peppers because then the sweet peppers will be hot due to cross-pollination. It's absolute nonsense. A hot pepper can't make a sweet pepper hot any more than a white man can lighten the skin of a black woman by having sex with her. Likewise, genes from GM crops aren't going to show up in the DNA of the crop in the field adjacent to them.

The phenotype would only show in the next generation it's true, but the Monsanto genes would indeed be in the seed of the cross-pollinated crop as long as fertilisation is at all possible between the two strains.

As far as your analogy is concerned, it would be any embryo being carried by the black woman that would show evidence of fertilisation by a white man.

 

[pipelineaudio]

My concern was from the monsanto website itself. They made it sound as if they had investigators at the seed washers and would checkout anyone who showed up. I realize that in and of itself that isnt bad, but seeing as how people treat much more innocent activity by the RIAA, I think Monsanto isnt doing its own image any favors. I'm still very confused on this whole issue

 

[WildCat]

The phenotype would only show in the next generation it's true, but the Monsanto genes would indeed be in the seed of the cross-pollinated crop as long as fertilisation is at all possible between the two strains.

So?

 

[GlennB]

So?

Just sayin' that GM genes are present in the cross-pollinated non-GM plant. If Monsanto detectives included the ears of maize when testing your innocent crop they'd find their genes in there. Hopefully they wouldn't be that stupid/devious and would only test the 'green' material. However any farmer who does retain seed (and some certainly do, though I don't know about maize specifically) of wind or insect pollinated plants might risk being found 'guilty' when in fact innocent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why Monsanto Always Wins

It's unclear if such internal cooperation continues under the current administration, but regulators still openly rely on data and research provided by the biotech industry when approving GE technology....

Emphasis on the fox guarding the hen house mine.

I'm in favor of GMFs and think the advances in genetic science are a welcome benefit for a resource challenged society. But I am not comforted to see profit motivated companies checking on their own product safety.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Why Monsanto Always WinsEmphasis on the fox guarding the hen house mine.

I'm in favor of GMFs and think the advances in genetic science are a welcome benefit for a resource challenged society. But I am not comforted to see profit motivated companies checking on their own product safety.

It's how drug companies work too. They prove (or try to) the product is safe and works, the studies get reviewed by the FDA scientists, and the FDA makes the final decision.

 

[WildCat]

Just sayin' that GM genes are present in the cross-pollinated non-GM plant. If Monsanto detectives included the ears of maize when testing your innocent crop they'd find their genes in there. Hopefully they wouldn't be that stupid/devious and would only test the 'green' material. However any farmer who does retain seed (and some certainly do, though I don't know about maize specifically) of wind or insect pollinated plants might risk being found 'guilty' when in fact innocent.

No US farmer is saving his seed, the result would be a terrible crop. And no, Monsanto can't do squat about pollen fertilizing other crops, and you've shown no evidence at all that they did so.

 

[lomiller]

No US farmer is saving his seed, the result would be a terrible crop.

Hybrids can’t be replanted or you get a terrible crop the following year (Which has devastated agriculture in some poorer countries), but not everyone plants hybrids.

And no, Monsanto can't do squat about pollen fertilizing other crops

Appeal to dubious (self) authority noted. Why should we give any credence to your opinion that Monsanto can’t sue for cases where wind or insects carry their patented genes into someone else’s field? Ignorance of patent violation doesn’t absolve you of the infringement.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Appeal to dubious (self) authority noted. Why should we give any credence to your opinion that Monsanto can’t sue for cases where wind or insects carry their patented genes into someone else’s field? Ignorance of patent violation doesn’t absolve you of the infringement.

Anyone can sue for anything but the court system is supposed to throw out bunk lawsuits. Do you have any evidence of judgments when someone was forced to pay monsanto because their crop was inadvertantly pollinated by monsanto's plants?

 

[lomiller]

Anyone can sue for anything but the court system is supposed to throw out bunk lawsuits.

If the patented gene was in their field it's not a bunk lawsuit. Patent law makes no allowances for why you are infringing only that you infringe.

 

[ThunderChunky]

If the patented gene was in their field it's not a bunk lawsuit. Patent law makes no allowances for why you are infringing only that you infringe.

Law is only what the courts rule. I take it you have no evidence.

 

[lomiller]

Law is only what the courts rule. I take it you have no evidence.

Courts do not make law.

I take it you have no evidence.

the relevant section of US law is readily available

http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html


There isn't a single line saying unintentional infringement "doesn't count", if you want to claim it doesn't "because the courts make the law" then *you* are the one who needs to provide evidence, not I.

 

[psionl0]

Do you have any evidence of judgments when someone was forced to pay monsanto because their crop was inadvertantly pollinated by monsanto's plants?

More to the point, why would monsanto get to do the suing if he allowed his patented plants to contaminate someone else's crops?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Courts do not make law.





the relevant section of US law is readily available

http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html


There isn't a single line saying unintentional infringement "doesn't count", if you want to claim it doesn't "because the courts make the law" then *you* are the one who needs to provide evidence, not I.

I'm not going to argue pointless hypotheticals about what the law might or might not mean. Unless you are a patent lawyer with a specialization in biotech, your opinion doesn't matter to me, even if you are I would only care is this was having a real world effect. To the point: has Monsanto sued someone and WON for unintentional infringement? If they have, you are right. If they have not, what is your point?

 

[stevea]

Stuff like this (from the Vanity Fair article linked in my previous post):

As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

Well - I suppose no impartial observer could question the motivation of that reportage.

When we hear an argument so biased it should cause a critical thinker to discount the claims until unbiased or alternatively biased evidence accrues. The FV article failed to provide any leads to actual evidence - no court filing info, no names, no specifics. I'd classify it as a yellow journalism screed. That doesn't make the contentions of the article right or wrong, but it is evidence of little except the authors bias.

So are there any court transcripts besides the canadian one or is it all hearsay?

All the US federal court records are online. Not transcripts, but filings, reviews, and decisions. You can search "Monsanto Roundup" and you'll find the cases. My interpretation from the defense position filings is that most of the farmers aren't making a credible legal case about the agreement violations. Their position involve arguments about statute of limitations and dubious provenance of the patented seeds (claiming the patents were invalid for example). The cases generally show egregious and uncontested agreement violations by small farmers.

The seed/farmer issue? I don't have access to court transcripts, but there seem to be many reliable sources that back this up (see links in my previous posts and elsewhere in this thread).

Name one - show evidence.

If the patented gene was in their field it's not a bunk lawsuit. Patent law makes no allowances for why you are infringing only that you infringe.

Agreed it is not "bunk" if the gene was in the field, but the license agreement prohibits replanting (or sale for replanting). Monsanto can't win a case just b/c a few volunteer corn plants self-propagated in a field. The cross-pollination issue would not lead to high rates of the GMO gene - so that case is easily distinguishable from replanting based on a grain sample.

Here is the Monsanto 2010 agreement form, and clearly Monsanto has rights to the farmers records and to enter the field on 7 day notice. This may or may not have been the terms of previous agreements.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...snauGdGjg&sig2=t3qj35tCUZjRoKj1U7z25A&cad=rja


From Monsanto's website:

A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 144 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States, as of April 2010. This averages about 11 per year for the past 13 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.

I understand the some people hold in inherent bias that the little-guy is always right/good, and the big-guy is always wrong/evil; it's a major stumbling block to critical thinking. A review of the US court evidence leads me to the opposite conclusion - that little-guy are the cheats in these specific cases. Perhaps Monsanto is doing more than properly enforcing their legitimate agreements against violators, but I see no substantial evidence..

 

[WildCat]

Hybrids can’t be replanted or you get a terrible crop the following year (Which has devastated agriculture in some poorer countries), but not everyone plants hybrids.

Yes, everyone in the US plants hybrids. They like to turn a profit with their produce.

Appeal to dubious (self) authority noted. Why should we give any credence to your opinion that Monsanto can’t sue for cases where wind or insects carry their patented genes into someone else’s field? Ignorance of patent violation doesn’t absolve you of the infringement.

What you describe is not patent infringement.