Why is Monsanto so hated?

[John Jones]

courts do not make law.

hahahahahaha!
:d

 

[Zavlon]

If there were no Monsanto, it would have been necessary for the anti-GMO movement to invent it.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I'm pretty sure farmers know how to best determine what is the best seed for them to plant, without any input at all from some armchair know-it-all who never planted anything more than a backyard garden.

If they didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto.

From the report summary I linked to: "In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops.

The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides."

 

[stevea]

The patented genes are in the crop the farmer is growing. I have sympathy for the notion that should not constitute infringement but there is no exception for that in the law.

lomiller - I think your objection is off-base. The farmers in question have all (the half dozen cases I examined) signed license agreements with Monsanto and DO have rights to grow the GMO crop from purchased seed. They do not have the right to use the resulting crop for replanting.

A few volunteer plants in a field that was GMO planted the previous year is NOT replanting by any reasonable definition. Finding A modest fraction of plants in a field that are the offspring of cross pollination is not evidence of replanting the direct GMO crop. Neither of these would appear to violate the agreement.

Just having a GMO plant is NOT a violation. The violation comes from using the item beyond the terms of the agreement.

 

[theprestige]

From the report summary I linked to: "In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops.

The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to to be citing material that supports WildCat's premise that "If [farmers] didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto".

 

[ThunderChunky]

^^Yes, I was proving a quote to support his statement. I wanted to emphasize the content of the source because I had previously just provided the link alone.

 

[DC]

The GMO critics tend to be the ones with the least scientific knowledge.

yeah, thats why the GMO fans always keep coming with the higher yield claims while most sold seeds are not higher yielding seeds but roundup resistant seeds with normal yields..... only now in 2011 Monsanto launches a new series with higher yields...........

yeah you GMO fans are so well informed, its just laughable....

 

[ThunderChunky]

yeah, thats why the GMO fans always keep coming with the higher yield claims while most sold seeds are not higher yielding seeds but roundup resistant seeds with normal yields..... only now in 2011 Monsanto launches a new series with higher yields...........

yeah you GMO fans are so well informed, its just laughable....

Did you look at the report that I linked to? Yields are one of advantages of current GMO plants, in part due to less loss from pests. Not that that is the point, you can find uninformed people on either side of the issue. However, the real scientific organizations (like the NAS) are on the pro-GMO side, while Greenpeace and fringe groups are on the other.

 

[lomiller]

Not that that is the point, you can find uninformed people on either side of the issue. However, the real scientific organizations (like the NAS) are on the pro-GMO side, while Greenpeace and fringe groups are on the other.

This isn’t a discussion about GMO, the issue here is Monsanto’s business practices.

 

[lomiller]

lomiller - I think your objection is off-base. The farmers in question have all (the half dozen cases I examined) signed license agreements with Monsanto and DO have rights to grow the GMO crop from purchased seed. They do not have the right to use the resulting crop for replanting.

Just having a GMO plant is NOT a violation. The violation comes from using the item beyond the terms of the agreement.

Monsanto has sued and won even when there was no licence agreement.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cases/monsanto-scruggs2.html

Just having a GMO plant is NOT a violation. The violation comes from using the item beyond the terms of the agreement.

There is no such provision in US (or most countries) law.

In patent cases any use of the patented invention, in this case the genetics to make the plant round up resistant, is infringement even if it’s unintentional. Even if you design it yourself from the ground up, if some aspect of a device you are building steps on someone else’s patent you can and probably will be sued for infringement or hit up for a settlement.

There is a whole industry built up around this type of patent camping. Companies build nothing and who’s whole business model is to acquire a portfolio of IP and wait for people to inadvertently infringe on the patent then extract a legal settlement.

 

[ThunderChunky]

This isn’t a discussion about GMO, the issue here is Monsanto’s business practices.

If you'll read the thread you will note the I was responding to DC on a discussion about GMO.

Why don't you respond to my previous posts that were addressed to you that have gone unanswered... Specifically my question that I asked multiple times.

 

[lomiller]

If you'll read the thread you will note the I was responding to DC on a discussion about GMO.

Why don't you respond to my previous posts that were addressed to you that have gone unanswered... Specifically my question that I asked multiple times.

All I recall is you insisting it was up to me to prove your claim wrong. No matter how many times you ask, that just isn't how it works.

 

[ThunderChunky]

All I recall is you insisting it was up to me to prove your claim wrong. No matter how many times you ask, that just isn't how it works.

Your recollection is incorrect. I asked you to substantiate your claim which you failed to do. I made no claim of my own, only the rejection of yours. I also specifically asked you a question about the point of your claim under the circumstance where the data I requested does not exist. You ignored this question over the course of multiple posts.

ETA: Just to reiterate... First, if your claim is true, there should be court cases supporting it. You failed to provide such supporting evidence. Secondly, if there are no such court cases supporting your claim, what was the point of your claim? This seems very straightforward to me, so I do not know what your problem is.

 

[Zavlon]

yeah, thats why the GMO fans always keep coming with the higher yield claims while most sold seeds are not higher yielding seeds but roundup resistant seeds with normal yields..... only now in 2011 Monsanto launches a new series with higher yields...........

yeah you GMO fans are so well informed, its just laughable....

That depends on where you are and what crop/trait you mean. Insect resistant Bt crops in the US have only improved yields by something like 5% maybe...however, that's because yields were already really high thanks to pesticides (the use of which Bt GE crops has cut). In places where they don't have access to those pesticides, the gain has been much higher, for example, I believe the gain in yield for Bt corn is something like 24% in the Philippines. And the gains from herbicide tolerant crops are significant too. Not sure the exact gain in terms of yield since the gains are mostly environmental. The carbon sequestering as a result of the no-till methods that herbicide tolerant soybeans allow was, in the US in 2005 the equivalent of removing just a bit under a million cars from the road. In Argentina it was almost double that. Now if you compare yields of papaya in Hawaii when the papaya ringspot virus was decimating the crop and after the introduction of the genetically modified virus resistant papaya then you have gains...as in something vs nothing, so how's that for yield gains? Since this tread is about Monsanto, it should be noted that they don't have any virus resistant crops like that out right now, and who knows if they ever will, but if you mean GMOs in general, then there you go, and while it is true that no currently approved GMO has traits that directly effect yields, higher yields are not just a myth, there's more than one way to reach that goal, and do not forget that there is a lot more to it than higher yields, even with the often hated herbicide tolerant crops. Monsanto is a lot like Merck or Pfizer...not your friend, not to be trusted, but not without merit either. Just like Merck's vaccines make the world a better place, Monsanto's GMO crops are actually a positive too.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I cannot find any court cases of Monsanto suing a farmer for accidental contamination (a case where Monsanto genetics contaminate a farmers crop unbeknownst to the farmer). lomiller claims that accidental contamination is patent infringement, but has failed to produce such an example. I asked why one should care if this type of infringement is not being enforced and lomiller refused to answer.

Looking in the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case I have found some interesting legal opinion. This case itself did not rule on the issue, because the defendant knew he was growing Monsanto genetics.

(b) The innocent infringer

[55] Counsel for Mr. Schmeiser submitted that a finding for Monsanto in this case would be highly prejudicial to any farmer who does not wish to grow Roundup Ready Canola. That is because glyphosate resistant canola can appear in a field without having been planted there, but a farmer cannot detect it without spraying Roundup, thereby killing any conventional canola in the field.

[56] There is considerable force to the argument that it would be unfair to grant Monsanto a remedy for infringement where volunteer Roundup Ready Canola grows in a farmer's field but its resistance to glyphosate remains unknown, or if that characteristic becomes apparent but the seeds of the volunteer plants are not retained for cultivation. It is often said that intention is not material to a finding of infringement: H. Fox, The Canadian Law and Practice relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, 4th ed. (1969), at page 381; Computalog Ltd. v. Comtech Logging Ltd. (1992), 44 C.P.R. (3d) 77 (F.C.A.). That principle was developed in the context of patents for conventional inventions: see, for example, Stead v. Anderson (1847), 2 W.P.C. 156, Wright v. Hitchcock (1870), L.R. 5 Ex. 37, Young v. Rosenthal (1884), 1 R.P.C. 29 (Q.B.), Skelding v. Daly et al. (1941), 1 C.P.R. 266 (B.C.C.A.). Clearly, in most cases of patent infringement, to allow a defence of ignorance or lack of intention to infringe would destroy the efficacy of the patent, because the actual content of any particular patent is known to very few people.

[57] However, it seems to me arguable that the patented Monsanto gene falls into a novel category. It is a patented invention found within a living plant that may, without human intervention, produce progeny containing the same invention. It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.

At the time of this ruling (2002) it was unknown whether accidental contamination was actually infringement (and there apparently was no precedent--implying no such cases had been taken to court).

Some states in the USA have recently passed laws making such accidental contamination explicitly not a crime (California 2008). Again, it's still not clear whether that type of potential infringement was ever litigated. Also of note is that Schmeiser got Monsanto to pay for the removal of Monsanto crop that contaminated his farm.

 

[WildCat]

yeah, thats why the GMO fans always keep coming with the higher yield claims while most sold seeds are not higher yielding seeds but roundup resistant seeds with normal yields..... only now in 2011 Monsanto launches a new series with higher yields...........

yeah you GMO fans are so well informed, its just laughable....

I don't pretend to be as informed as a farmer who's literally betting his farm every time he buys and plants seed.

You, OTOH, seem to think you're better informed than the farmer is. Even though you've never dropped $10 on seed in your life, let alone invested millions in it.

 

[WildCat]

This isn’t a discussion about GMO, the issue here is Monsanto’s business practices.

Yeah, do you have any evidence at all to support your claims?

Hint: speculation is not evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Monsanto has sued and won even when there was no licence agreement.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cases/monsanto-scruggs2.html

Slow down there lomiller, did you even read the link you posted? This guy got a hold of some Monsanto seed (presumably he bought it from a 3rd party, which is why he didn't have a license), and then propagated that seed. And the only way to propagate such seed is in a greenhouse, not accidentally out in a field surrounded by other corn fields.

Your original claim was that Monsanto was suing farmers for pollen blowing onto their fields, which is an entirely different claim. Are you retracting that claim?

 

[lomiller]

Slow down there lomiller, did you even read the link you posted? This guy got a hold of some Monsanto seed (presumably he bought it from a 3rd party, which is why he didn't have a license), and then propagated that seed.

Monsanto sells its seeds though third parties. Is it your expectation that people drive up to Monsanto’s head office and pick up seed?

In this case the third party was authorized to sell Monsanto’s seeds, no usage agreement for those seeds was ever signed that seeds would not be retained and re-planted. Monsanto sued the farmer for replanting seeds and won. This sufficiently refutes the claim made by you and others that Monsanto is only suing people who violate a signed contract not to replant seeds.

Your original claim was that Monsanto was suing farmers for pollen blowing onto their fields, which is an entirely different claim. Are you retracting that claim?

Why should I support a claim was already proved? At this point I suspect you have run out of arguments and are just being petulant, I mean just one post ago you asked me to prove we are discussing Monsanto’s business practices.

 

[DC]

I don't pretend to be as informed as a farmer who's literally betting his farm every time he buys and plants seed.

You, OTOH, seem to think you're better informed than the farmer is. Even though you've never dropped $10 on seed in your life, let alone invested millions in it.

actually i never claimed so.... as usual you need your strawmen....