PubPat Kills Four Key Monsanto Patents

IP Ergo Sum writes "PubPat's request for reexamination resulted in the rejection of four key Monsanto patents. According to PubPat, those particular patents were being used to 'harass, intimidate, sue — and in many cases bankrupt — American farmers.'"

Re:mirror request

[sodul]

Not a mirror but a short article on the case here [prnewswire.com].

Re:A great step, but only a small battle won....

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair not all of it is the fault of the monopoly, it's US law that any openly traded company has to maximize profits for it's share holders, I'm not certain of the exact wording of the law, but I'm quite sure it's ruthless. Now I'm not saying that monopolies are by and large a good thing, but they could have their place, just not with current laws and practices how they are

Patents in question

[evanbd]

5164316: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription

5196525: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription

5322938: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription

5352605: Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters

Yes, the first three have the same title. I haven't read any of them yet. You can find the full text on the USPTO web site. Search by patent number here [uspto.gov].

Re:mirror request

[eclectro]

Here is another article [commercialappeal.com] to tide you over until the tech details are available again. It seems that they are centered around the roundup ready seeds.

Excerpt

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't access the article. But here's an excerpt from the executive
summary from centerforfoodsafety.org:

Startling though these numbers are, they do not begin to tell the whole
story. Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are
sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating
them. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the 90 lawsuits
CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements.
No farmer is safe from the long reach of Monsanto. Farmers have
been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone
else's genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a
previous year's crop has sprouted, or "volunteered," in fields planted with
non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they
never signed Monsanto's technology agreement but still planted the patented
crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been
applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use
was unwitting or a contract was never signed.

Second try

[jeti]

Sorry. Missed a paragraph when pasting. Here's the relevant text:

The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as
a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments
granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have
paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments.
Startling though these numbers are, they do not begin to tell the whole
story. Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are
sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating
them. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the 90 lawsuits
CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements.
No farmer is safe from the long reach of Monsanto. Farmers have
been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone
else's genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a
previous year's crop has sprouted, or "volunteered," in fields planted with
non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they
never signed Monsanto's technology agreement but still planted the patented
crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been
applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use
was unwitting or a contract was never signed.

Looks like they can't keep up their pledge...

[Anonymous Coward]

On their webpage they have a link to a letter from the CEO about the Monsanto Pledge:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/our_pledge /letter_grant.asp [monsanto.com]

An interesting quote from the letter:
"Obviously, we still have challenges. They include how to secure our intellectual property in parts of the world where the legal protection is not yet mature."

Re:The impact is much bigger in India...

[jkrise]

Sterile organisms are used in legitimate science all the time, and for a lot of reasons. For example, fruit fly populations in some places are controlled by introducing large numbers of sterilized males; or in testing genetically modified crops, sterilized seeds have a much lower risk of being accidentally introduced into the wild.
 
I feel there are so many other techniques, that are even more effective in producing desired results you have stated above - without genetically inducing sterility.

In any case, Monsanto's modus operandi is to introduce a BT variety of a seed, and claim it generates 30% more yield than normal varieties. But the catch is that seeds cannot be re-used, and the claims of increased yield are often spurious. Worse, these genetic strains propogate through pollen, affecting crops which were raised traditionally.

We aren't talking about fruit-flies and pests, we are talking about cash crops, commercial crops and livelihoods - not only of this generation, but posterity.

Re:mirror request

[indy_Muad'Dib]

years ago Monsanto actually got Fox News to kill a story about the adverse effects of BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) in Humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw [youtube.com]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&o i=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=monsanto+BGH+fox +news&spell=1 [google.com]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/ [foxbghsuit.com]

the reporters got shit canned for it and Monsanto protected their bottom line.

Milk is very bad for you with all this BGH in it.

Causes Cancer.

Re:Naaaah

[NearlyHeadless]

You're obviously not up-to-speed with Monsanto. What happens is that a neighboring field cross-pollinates, or some seeds blow off of a passing truck, and all of a sudden, your "grandfather's strain" has been contaminated with the patented Monsanto genes. Somehow, they test your field and they sue you. You can't argue with the DNA, so you are SOL and they shut you down, even though you never wanted their genes to start with.

One Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser [wikipedia.org] claimed that, but that claim was rejected by the courts.

In the cases that are cited in the press release [prnewswire.com] the acts are all intentional.

link to non-slashdoted pages

[Anonymous Coward]

http://google.com/search?q=cache:vfmbsNn07hoJ:www. pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm [google.com]

http://bereagardens.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:A great step, but only a small battle won....

[Slayer]

Sorry dude, but Mosanto's crops don't work like that. Instead they made their crops resistant to a certain herbicide. Farmers who use their crops can use that herbicide (called roundup, also owned by Mosanto) without hurting their own crops.

It has been proven scientifically that genes can spread across species (doesn't happen often but does), so who's going to be responsible if bad herbs become resistant and would have to be weeded out manually ? You think the world can't support its populace (which is definitely not true. Starving is not causes by drought or poor harvest, it's caused by war and corrupt politicians in the countries affected). But we definitely will have a problem if decades of herbicide research go to waste because one greedy irresponsible company releases random genes out into our environment.

If Mosanto and their brethen cared about world hunger they wouldn't sue farmers for using grain that happened to have been fertilized with their GM pollen. At the moment it appears that GM is not bad by itself but it is unprofitable unless you employ highly questionable business tactics.

Monsanto is not your friend

[cromano]

For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, gene patenting, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent [isohunt.com]).

Description:

THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.

From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.

Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.

IMDB link. [imdb.com] ... and don't get me started on the "terminator gene".

-Sin Maíz no hay País-

Feudalism...

[Savage-Rabbit]

I hate to be a jerk, but I have to question why the farmers just don't stick to their traditional crops (versus the GM versions) if Monsanto is so horrible. Not one is forcing them to buy GM seeds (they could have kept saving and resuing their old seeds forever, without having to buy anything from Monsanto). So either buying Monsanto seeds isn't a losing deal (i.e. the farmers still make more money than they would have otherwise) or the farmers have poor judgement. Am I missing something?

It seems to me that a lot of them are pretty much suckered into it. They are made to think that this is the latest thing in modern agriculture and that it will benefit them with higher crop yields and thus higher profit margins. To people who are often already having trouble turning a profit this is hard to refuse. Not that is easy to get your hands on unmodified seed stock any more. To add insult to injury even if you inadvertently planted GM seeds you are also fucked. To quote TFA:

American farmers are hard pushed to find high quality, conventional varieties of corn, soy and cottonseed. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Troy Roush, an Indiana soybean farmer says, "You can't even purchase them in this market. They are not available." Similar reports come from the corn and cotton farmers who say, "There are not too many seeds available that are not genetically altered in some way.".....

.....Farmers are under pressure to confirm their identity as modern agriculturalists, particularly in developing countries. But replacing the traditional strategy of saving and replanting seeds from diverse varieties by a patented seed with all its restrictions threatens food security at household and global levels......

.....A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.

Here's another choice quote:

Researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada tested 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stock and 32 were contaminated with GM. The Union of Concerned Scientists tested traditional US seed stocks of corn, soy and canola and found 50% corn, 50% soy and 83% canola contaminated by GM.

One hundred percent purity is no longer achievable, and even if non-contaminated seed could be purchased, some contamination can take place in the field either by transfer of seed by wind, animals or via farm equipment.

Monsanto dominates the sale of seed stocks yet puts the onus of finding markets for crops on the farmer. Within their contract is the "Technology Use Guide" which gives directions on how to find grain handlers willing to accept crops not approved for use in the EU. While Monsanto acknowledges that pollen flow and seed movement are sufficient to contaminate neighbouring non-GM fields their implicit rule is that "the growers of the non-GM crops must assume responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crops meet specifications for purity.".....

.....Outcomes of lawsuits brought by Monsanto against farmers are mostly kept under wraps. If farmers are tempted to breach confidentiality they can face fines greater than the settlements. But where judgments have been publicly recorded, sizeable payments benefit not only Monsanto, but also partner companies.

Combined financial penalties have forced many farmers into bankruptcy and off their land. Agriculture is suffering losses all around because of the disappearance of foreign markets. The US Farm Bureau estimates that farmers lose over $300 million a year because European markets refuse GM corn. The US State Department says that as much as $4 billion could be lost in agricultural exports due to EU labelling and traceability requirements. Organic and conventional farmers

Re:Naaaah

[erroneus]

Until recently, that hasn't been successful. You really haven't been following this tragic, unreported story-line. See, their [Monsanto] lawyers are bigger than the farmers' lawyers and that's who has historically won. So on one hand, when they sue for their accidental contamination, they use various arguments such as "it can't be helped, it's nature and nature's function" or "these GM seeds had made your crops better and we counter-sue" or "no, you must have stolen it! and we counter-sue" and on and on.

Re:Naaaah

[xaxa]

This article: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php [i-sis.org.uk] suggests otherwise.
 

Researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada tested 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stock and 32 were contaminated with GM. The Union of Concerned Scientists tested traditional US seed stocks of corn, soy and canola and found 50% corn, 50% soy and 83% canola contaminated by GM.
One hundred percent purity is no longer achievable, and even if non-contaminated seed could be purchased, some contamination can take place in the field either by transfer of seed by wind, animals or via farm equipment.

It goes on to say that because of cross-contamination 'organic' crops often aren't organic any more.

Re:Why Is There Such Opposition To Biological Pate

[3.5 stripes]

Because they use them irresponsibly, if they made their GM crops sterile, that's fine. They don't though, so their patented GM genes end up in the crops of people who chose not to use their seeds. Since the genes are their property, they feel that they are entitled to money for them, and end up suing the farmers who used their products either unknowingly, or even unwillingly.

Being able to own a product that autoreproduces by design, uncontrollable by the patent owner, is bad. Sort of the viral infection that people always associate with GPL software, except in this case, it's really hard to not chose to use their products.

Re:Naaaah

[NearlyHeadless]

Until recently, that hasn't been successful. You really haven't been following this tragic, unreported story-line. See, their [Monsanto] lawyers are bigger than the farmers' lawyers and that's who has historically won. So on one hand, when they sue for their accidental contamination, they use various arguments such as "it can't be helped, it's nature and nature's function" or "these GM seeds had made your crops better and we counter-sue" or "no, you must have stolen it! and we counter-sue" and on and on.

As far as I am aware there has been one farmer who claimed that the seed ended up on his land accidentally. He claimed this even though 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants! The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118). [canlii.org] That is, he was lying.

In all the cases that are cited in the PubPat press release [prnewswire.com] [prnewswire.com] the acts are intentional. No one is claiming accidental contamination.

Re:A great step, but only a small battle won....

[amber_of_luxor]

Why the farmers just don't stick to their traditional crops (versus the GM versions)

Because their seed rep lies to them about the source and type of seed that they are buying. If the farmer has done the traditional save seeds each crop, then they might be able to replant without having to buy seeds. Even so,if there is a GM crop within 20 kilometers of their farm, their crop will be poisoned by the GM crop.

No one is forcing them to buy GM seeds

In Third world countries, the decision to grown GM crops is made in Washington DC. It is not made by the local farmer. US Foreign Aid, The World Bank, and other organizations that ostensibly help developing nations inflict policies on those countries that have one purpose --- to maximize the revenue of multinational megacorporations, and ensure that the "developing countries" remains serfs of the megacorporations.

Food is a weapon that the united states is not shy about using.

The output of the GM crops are that much better.

For the first six or so years. Then crop production drops, and ten years later it is less than a quarter of what it was when GM production started. In some instances, it doesn't even take a decade for the "permanent crop failure" effect to kick in.

Amber

Re:Why Is Everyone Opposed To Biological Patents?

[amber_of_luxor]

I do not understand why there is such opposition to biological patents.

Biological patents are awarded on strains of seeds that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Monsanto is unusual, in that they do some R&D prior to getting a patent.

Amber

Should he have burnt his crop?

[MikePlacid]

In the wikipedia article you cited, the sequence of events in Schmeiser case is as follows:

1. Schmeiser field was contaminated by Roundup Ready gene.
2. Schmeiser discovered this and decided to harvest, save seeds and plant them next year.
3. He has not used Roundup at all, so his decision in 2 was not because he wanted a free benefit, but just because he did not want to burn contaminated crop.
4. Appelate courts split 5:4. 5 for "use" means "any use", 4 for "use" means "for profit use".

Should he have burnt his contaminated harvest? Why? He was not under contract with Monsanto.

Re:A great step, but only a small battle won....

[calcapt]

At the moment, I have to call total BS. What you're saying is non factual and irresponsbile alarmist talk.

There's little to no evidence whatsoever that GMO's are killing bees. Some scientists are worried about a link, but it's highly unlikely. Bt insect resistance doesn't even target bee species; it targets lepidoptera, diptera and coleoptera. In otherwords, butterflys/moths, flys, and beetles. What order are honey bees in? Hymenoptera.

Furthermore, resistant plants target the larvae of susceptible insects; these bugs ingest the Bt protein, which is only toxic in basic insect midguts, and forms pores and destroys their gut. Do honey bee larvae grow on plants? No, I didn't think so. And while they do ingest pollen that worker bees bring back to hives, tests have shown that pollen with Bt is not toxic at all. [http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/safety_science/68.doc u.html] These were done by giving adult bees and larvae Bt pollen at 100x normal concentrations.

To sum it up, honey bees are fine after contact with Bt crops. Even larvae, which are Bt corn targets in susceptible species, were fine. Long story short, we're going to have to keep looking for a cause for CCD, and people need to stop screaming, "OMFGIT'SGMOS!" at the first sign of trouble. It's completely irresponsible, especially when there are more likely reasons for CCD, such as pathogens with extremely deleterious effects to colony health.

Re:A great step, but only a small battle won....

[Peter La Casse]

I can't think of any product which has Y and would really benefit from X but doesn't have it.

Linux distributions would benefit from legal playback of data stored in various proprietary codecs.

Pretty soon people wouldn't share their inventions any more if they could actually keep the workings secret and if they couldn't they have trouble making any money from them so in the end no one would really bother.

I don't believe that. Most inventions made to solve a problem are obvious after the fact ("why didn't I think of that?"), and in most cases patenting an invention does not improve income. People don't learn new things by trolling patent archives; instead, developers avoid patent archives in order to minimize liability.

Not as silly as you'd think

[Solandri]

If GM crops nudge out the conventional ones, eventually we'll be in a position where a company can starve millions of people to death at will. Legally.

That's just silly. There are lots of different kinds of seeds and lots of different kinds of crops. The patents in this case would all expire by 2011 even if they are eventually found valid.

A Union of Concerned Scientists study [ucsusa.org] found that of "non-GM" seed stock tested in the U.S., 50% of the corn, 50% of the soybeans, and 83% of the canola were already cross-contaminated with GM material. If Monsanto had their way, anyone using that cross-contaminated seed would have to be paying them for a license if the patent belonged them. When that number reaches 100%, it'd basically be pay Monsanto or you can't farm.

I am not against patents on an innovate breed of crop manufactured through genetic engineering per se. But the way Monsanto is pursuing farmers right now would be like if the RIAA demanded you pay for a copy of a CD whenever someone listening to a song simply drove by you in his car with his windows open. If Monsanto wants the benefit of patent-backed monopoly pricing on their product, then the onus should be on them to insure that people wishing to opt out of that monopoly have a clear means to do so.

Re:A great step, but only a small battle won....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry dude, but Mosanto's crops don't work like that. Instead they made their crops resistant to a certain herbicide. Farmers who use their crops can use that herbicide (called roundup, also owned by Mosanto) without hurting their own crops."
You are partially correct. Monsanto's crops "do work like that." They also have bt corn that protects against corn borers among other pests. Using bt corn, especially in corn on corn or 3rd year corn situations, allows you to get away with using no pesticides in some situations. These traits may also be "stacked". You can have RoundUp Ready corn that also has the bt gene. A note about RoundUp which you mentioned was owned by Monsanto. The corn is actually resistant to the chemical glysophate which is commercially available is hundreds of generic forms (Buccaneer Plus, Touchdown Total, etc...) and these are perfectly safe to spray on RoundUp ready corn or Roundup ready soybeans so you don't have to double pay Monsanto. The specific traits in the seed are also licensed to just about every major player in the seed market although a technology fee does go to Monsanto(in the US anyway).
I live in Wisconsin and work at a feed mill/grain elevator and am licensed to apply pesticides to agricultural crops so this is a subject I understand. By the way Monsanto is a major pain in the backside to deal with even for legit businesses selling there products.

Alternative to Future of Food Doc: Harvest of Fear

[calcapt]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/ [pbs.org]

Harvest of Fear is a documentary on GMOs as well, produced by PBS. If anyone watches Future of Food, they should watch Harvest of Fear. This is primarily because I thought Future of Food (as another reply to this parent pointed out) seems to have been designed to scare the viewer shitless. Harvest of Fear, on the other hand, provides arguments and counter arguments for nearly every topic brought up, without the dramatics and theatrics featured in the Future of Food. You might find yourself agreeing with one viewpoint, and another take on that viewpoint will be brought up, and it gets you thinking.

In any case, it's good to watch the 2 and compare/contrast the views.

Re:The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get your facts straight, 1.) It IS UNNATURAL. 2.) It IS HARMFUL. 3.) genetic pollution HAPPENS OFTEN.

Genetically Modified High Frutcose Corn Syrup is harmful to people's health and GM crops don't grow by themselves.

Organic farms are increasingly finding that via cross-pollination their pure food has been contaminated with GM DNA thus ruining their businesses.

It is illegal to grow GM maize in Mexico..

"Genetic pollution" and collateral damage from GE field crops already have begun to wreak environmental havoc. Wind, rain, birds, bees, and insect pollinators have begun carrying genetically-altered pollen into adjoining fields, polluting the DNA of crops of organic and non-GE farmers. An organic farm in Texas has been contaminated with genetic drift from GE crops on a nearby farm and EU regulators are considering setting an "allowable limit" for genetic contamination of non-GE foods, because they don't believe genetic pollution can be controlled. Because they are alive, gene-altered crops are inherently more unpredictable than chemical pollutants--they can reproduce, migrate, and mutate. Once released, it is virtually impossible to recall genetically engineered organisms back to the laboratory or the field.

Large-scale genetic contamination of imported cottonseed in Greece

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gepollution.cfm [organicconsumers.org]
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/pollution.cfm [organicconsumers.org]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsant o_and_Genetic_Pollution [sourcewatch.org]
http://www.globalchefs.com/column/archive/col011po l.htm [globalchefs.com]
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscienc e/casestudies/case15.mhtml [mhhe.com]

And on and on and on and on and on and fucking on...

(the following snipet was stolen at random from: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Dangers-of-High-Fruc tose-Corn-Syrup&id=28535 [ezinearticles.com] )

High Fructose Corn Syrup

High fructose corn syrup is made by treating corn (which is usually genetically modified corn) with a variety of enzymes, some of which are also genetically modified, to first extract the sugar glucose and then convert some of it into fructose, since fructose tastes sweeter than glucose. The end result is a mixture of 55% fructose and 45% glucose, that is called "high fructose corn syrup." Improvements in production occurred in the 1980's making it cheaper than most other sweeteners. I remember in the 1980's when the price of Pepsi dropped from about $3 for a sixpack to about $1.50. In 1966 refined sugar such as sucrose was the was the leading sweetener / additive. In 2001 corn sweeteners accounted for 55% of the sweetener market. Consumption of high fructose corn syrup went from zero in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001. A 12 ounce soda can contain as much as 13 teaspoons of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

Once again, the dangerous combination: fructose and glucose.

When high fructose corn syrup breaks down in the intestine, we once again find near equal amounts of glucose and fructose entering the bloodstream. As covered in recent newsletters, the fructose short-circuits the glycolytic pathway for glucose. This leads to all the problems associated with sucrose. In addition, HFCS seems to be generating a few of its own problems, epidemic obesity being one of them. Fructose does not stimulate insulin production and also fails to increase "leptin" production, a hormone produced by the body's fat cells. Both of these act to turn off the appetite and control body weight. Als

Read the Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto makes a lot of money off a bag of RR seed. A lot. Say a 50lb. bag of soybean seed costs $30 from a local seed company (fairly reasonable price currently). Well, over 50% of that cost is licensing fees to Monsanto and breeders. The seed company makes very low profits on it (i.e. cost of market soybeans + cost of production + cost of inspections and testing != much profit).

Also offered are non-GMO soybeans. Its a shame, but the cost of production for those is much higher than it used to be because it they have to be tested for absence of GMO seeds. With careful production methods, you can get purity of 98-99.5% non-GMO; and this is with fields that are planted right next to each other. Cross pollination is not a big deal in soybeans. Now in corn, well, yes that is much harder to control pollination as it can pollinate other plants for tens of feet.

Seed companies are forced into working with Monsanto with much much higher levels of scrutiny than regular farmers. And if you mess up (or they just don't like you), they take away the privilege of selling their seed. Which, basically eliminates you in the market of selling seed. Other interesting things that they seem to do is finding issues with companies, threatening them, and then they end up buying the company out. Its funny then to watch how they can sell seed cheaper under their owned brands. They must be able to cut themselves a better deal on the licensing.

No wonder I'm posting AC......

OT: Bee's are dieing due to Asian Parasite

[mrand]

>

Read more at:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /43163/story.htm [planetark.com]

(yes, this is off topic for the overall article... but I felt it was important enough to post this rather than use my moderation points)

Re:Should he have burnt his crop?

[modecx]

No, the Supreme court of Canada, on the Percy Schmeiser case, said that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, knowingly collected and replanted the seeds from the cross-contaminated crop. How they arrived at this determination, I can't speculate. I don't know how you say "oh by golly, these seeds here look like they have a Monsanto patented gene, I better not plant 'em, else them big corporations are gonna mow me down!" It's good for him that the court awarded no damages to Monsanto, though.

Secondly, he's freaking Canadian, and doesn't receive the kinds of subsidies you think he does. Thirdly, he was growing canola, which does not receive kind of government protection that corn in the United States does. Fourthly, at the time of this battle he was ~70 years old. I guess he'd be better off ditching that farming crap, being a greeter at Wal-Mart is much more profitable and spiritually rewarding, anyway.

Re:Should he have burnt his crop?

[Martin Blank]

Actually, Schmeiser routinely used Roundup around power poles and in ditches. That's how he discovered that he had the cross-contamination, as after using Roundup, he realized that some plants survived. After spraying a few more acres and discovering that more than half of the sprayed crop survived, he collected that seed for use in the next season's crop. Schmeiser's crop went from 60% of a few acres to 95% of 1000 acres in one season.

Monsanto will gladly come take their property...

[ubercam]

off your field upon request. First they'll spray Round Up on every square inch and then come back when all the non-GM plants are dead and rip the ones that're still standing out of the ground. Sounds like a good deal doesn't it?

Why don't farmers have a legal edge by saying, "The plants all look the same, the seed all looks the same, how the hell are we supposed to be able to tell the difference simply by looking at it?? We don't have genetic engineering labs in our barns, how are we supposed to reasonably be able to figure out which is which?"

I've hated Monsanto with a passion ever since the first cross-contamination trials, yet more and more I see the signs in farmer's fields proudly displaying which strain of GM crop they're growing that year. My ex's uncle has a certified organic beef farm. It had to be tested and certified that no pesticides or herbicides were used anywhere on his land for the 7 years prior to his application. No idea whether they have to recheck every so often to keep the certification up. His land is mostly pasture for the cattle though.

Back to Monsanto though, how do they have the right to enter your fields and test your crops without consent? Isn't that trespassing, or even theft since they're taking seeds/plants for testing that may not actually be their "property"?

Speaking of the political donations and such, us Canucks have an excellent federal law (IMHO) that limits campaign contributions to $2000 per individual (be it person or corporation), period. Sure, the CEO, chairman of the board, managing directors etc etc can all individually donate $2000 out of their own pockets, as well as the company donating it's $2000, but it really curbs the massive multi-million dollar donations that political campaigns in the US get from all sorts of health insurance, oil, pharmaceutical, etc companies, and the thousands of lobby groups for various things. I'm sure we have all the same sorts of crap here in Canada, but their influence ($$$) is limited by law.

Maybe that's something the US government should look at... doubt it'd ever happen though.