300k Organic Farmers To Sue Monsanto For Seed Patent Claims 617
microphage writes "Monsanto went after hundreds of farmers for infringing on their patented seed after audits revealed that their farms had contained their product — as a result of routine pollination by animals and acts of nature. Unable to afford a proper defense, competing small farms have been bought out by the company in droves. As a result, Monsanto saw their profits increase by the hundreds of millions over the last few years as a result. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto tackled 144 organic farms with lawsuits and investigated roughly 500 plantations annually during that span with a so-called 'seed police.'"
I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of their claims are actually legitimate. A lot of cheap-ass farmers will buy secondhand Monsanto seed from cleaners who take second generation seed from Monsanto crops (sold by other cheap-ass farmers) and sell them at a fraction of Monsanto's price. They're essentially benefiting from all of Monsanto's research and development without paying them a dime.
And I know it's politically-incorrect to bad-mouth the noble American farmer, but I grew up working on farms--and a more cheap-ass, money-grubbing group of people you would be hard-pressed to find. The average farmer I grew up with would climb over his dead mother to save $1. They paid in cash to avoid taxes and unemployment insurance, hired illegals if they could get them (at about half what they paid locals), used all kinds of cheap tricks to inflate their yields, outright lied to the government to up their subsidies, etc. I have no doubt most of the farmers I knew wouldn't have hesitated to use secondhand Monsanto seed if they could have gotten it by hook or crook for even slightly cheaper (this was back before genetic engineering became so big, so it wasn't such an issue back then).
Yes, I have no doubt that some organic farmers are being caught up unfairly in the dragnet. But I also can't blame Monsanto for having these much-maligned "seed police," because there are plenty of farmers out there who would gladly fuck them if they could. Sorry if that complicates the "Noble Farmer vs. Evil Corporation" black-and-white narrative.
Re:Wait! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes... this is essentially what has been happening. Plus as part of the agreement that small farmers MUST sign they can not keep any of of their crop to be "cleaned" and used for next year's seed. The agreement essentially makes it that the plant is owned by Monsanto. Even if farmers steer clear of Monsanto seed, if there is any cross pollination and the the gene that Monsanto "owns" gets to be part of the crop then the seed police come knockin'.
If you are interested in more information about this and the other evil that Monsanto has been a part of, take a look at the movie and the book "The World According to Monsanto" [wikipedia.org] by Marie-Monique Robin. She tries to be fair, but be aware it's very anti-Monstanto since they used the trick of never talking to her about anything.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
No they aren't sterile. [wikipedia.org] The terminator gene got SO MUCH bad press that they never were able to use it.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
You can't control what the bees do. Cross pollination happens. The Monsanto genes have been found even in countries that have outlawed its use.
On top of this there have been fairly predatory actions by the "seed police" P.I.s. They look closely at *anyone* that does seed cleaning, and if there is any cross pollination they sue. There are even allegations they encouraged cross pollination so they could sue non-customers.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:4, Informative)
Despite the nonsense that certain organic farmers and various industry groups may claim, the terms "organic" and "genetically modified" are unrelated and in no way mutually exclusive. This is especially true in consumer foods, where the term "organic" is completely unregulated and thus meaningless, beyond than the implicit meaning of "really fucking expensive".
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
But the Monsanto patented crops are sterile
No, *you* don't know what you're talking about. Monsanto seed is not sterile. Read it for yourself [monsanto.com], from their own website. They make it pretty clear "Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product."
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't Organic now officially defined in the US?
Doesn't it exclude genetically modified?
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO [usda.gov]
Re:Wait! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Did they buy the seed because of the added feat (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
Organic does not mean no pesticides. There are pesticides that are certified organic, see here [wikipedia.org].
Some organic pesticides can cause cancer. Others are extremely toxic to surrounding wild life due to runoff. Organic pesticides may require more applications than equivalent non-organic pesticides.
I am not saying to not eat organic, but everyone needs to understand what "Organic" does and does not mean. And that term is under constant attack by large scale commercial farming organizations to water it down as much as they can. And most organic farms are not owning up to exactly how much organic pesticides they actually use. Or even disclosing the use of such pesticides.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:3, Informative)
National Organic Program: [usda.gov]
"What is organic?
Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used."
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:4, Informative)
Very well, first of all, Gene Patents are valid and legal, due to landmark cases:
Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
The most recent decision on this case is that patents can be held. The particular case I was referring to is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children's_Hospital_Research_Institute [wikipedia.org]
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
SEC. 2105. 7 U.S.C. 6504 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION.
To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this title, an agricultural product shall --
(1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided in this title;
(2) except as otherwise provided in this title and excluding livestock, not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products; and
(3) be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and handler of such product and the certifying agent.
I see nothing in that definition that prohibits "genetically modified" seed being used. In addition, the CFR seems to be most interested in restriction who can used the official USDA "organic" label, not in what can be referred to as "organic".
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
You, sir, are categorically wrong. I have known a family for years, with their own fields dedicated to seed production, that were entrapped in Monsanto's corruption. Their own land. Their own seed. Their own equipment.
They were threatened with a lawsuit, and they could not afford the money to defend themselves. Everyone around them was using Monsanto seed- they were positive it meant their crops had been contaminated with whatever blew over the fences over the 40-plus years their family had owned the operation.
One is now a cashier at Walmart. The other tries to be a woodworker. They don't raise seed on the place anymore- they lease it to someone who uses Monsanto seed.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
Read The Windup Girl [wikipedia.org] for a (fictionalized) glimpse at that thought.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
Remeber that _tiny_ test plot of Bayer Life Sciences unapproved for consumption GMO rice that managed to contaminate the entire states rice supply in sufficient quantity that the states entire crop was wasted.
Hmmm... a tiny test plot, and and entire states crop ruined.
Some of that may have happened here too.
Monsanto GMO pollen trespasses on the organic farmers land, contaminating his crop. Farmer collects the seed. Seed exchanged with other farmers (genetic diversity is a good thing normally). Now the contaminated seed has spread well beyond the original farm.
Monsanto should have to pay for the cleanup of its contamination. And any losses the farmers suffered.
Wild rape seed in Canada is GMO now, due to "Roundup Ready" genes hopping over from GMO Canola. Containing GMO is a fantasy. And the costs for GMO contamination are born by the innocent party who was damaged in our corrupt corporate run country / world.
Re:Take this with a grain of salt (Score:5, Informative)
It's a Russian's goverment foreign propaganda arm, so it usually tries to shoot down Western views on Syria, Egypt, Libya - you name it. But this news bit seems to be legit. This is definitely screwed up situation. I hope that company gets it's lesson well.
Re:COUNTERSUE! (Score:5, Informative)
That case was just two farmers trying to get class action status though. If this one is 300,000 farmers, then I suspect they'll have a much better chance.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly.
Breeding only selects on the allele level (except for the seldom situation of an actual and not life threatening gene mutation). That means you don't get any new genes into your lifestock, you just recombine the alleles and then select for the best combinations.
There is a way to actually get new genes into your lifestock, it's called hybridization. It works pretty well for plant species that are closely related, so are most citrus fruits actually hybrids. It does not work so well for animals, the few wellknown examples of hybrids are almost all sterile, like the mule.
Genetic engineering puts genes that come from completely different livings into the genome, e.g. bacterial genes into plants, vertebrate genes into bacteria etc.pp. You don't get that type of modifications with breeding.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
And meanwhile, these seeds are about as healthy as dioxin.
Citation, please.
The plants are engineered to produce an insecticide that kills insects, and it's escaping from the fields... [independent.co.uk]
Lets say an ecosystem needs insects: Having 85% of all the streams around a genetically modified crop being polluted with insecticide masquerading as food might be an issue... In fact, it would be equivalent to sprinkling the countryside with some level of dioxin.
I'd say that pesticides escaping and even proliferating on their own is a generally bad idea. You can disagree with me, but then morons also exist.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
I call BS on this.
Anecdotal I know, but growing up on the farm when I showed up with a load of chopped corn the cows came running just as fast and ate just as much whether it was out of the non-GM fields (our fields) or a load that we bought the crop from the neighbor that only grew corn (GM).
Their might be some types of GM that the animals can detect (maybe the natural pesticides that some GMs produce) but they sure cannot detect all the GM crops.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
So yes as the law that was purchased by Monsanto stands right now if Cheney's patented dog shits in your yard they Cheney owns all the shit in your yard from not only his dog but from yours also. This is the law as purchased by Monsanto.
Re:Is there a more mainstream news source for this (Score:4, Informative)
Al Jazeera will probably pick it up, I'm sure the BBC will too. USAian networks don't seem as interested in this sort of thing, except for Comedy Central.
I hear that Monsanto's "seed police" are usually heavily built ex-military types driving black SUVs with tinted windows and hired to be as intimidating as possible.
I'm always a pretty critical thinker and always question the source, but based on everything I've seen and read on this topic this seems to be the real deal. Monsanto is a company with the ethics of Enron and the reach of Exxon. They've got to be stopped. Period.
Re:I hate to defend Monsanto somewhat, but (Score:5, Informative)
The "synthetic chemicals" part has to do with adjuncts added to the soil, not the growing seed, so I don't think that would apply. But, as I'm reminded, Federal bureaucrats always provide their own interpretations of laws in the Federal Register, and enforce the law based on those rules, not the way consumers or businesses interpret them. The applicable version is found here [usda.gov], and states, in part:
So I'm convinced that the USDA will exclude any kind of GMO crop from certification as "organic".
Re:whoa, man, like, go _natural_ (Score:4, Informative)
Addressing the lot of responses...
Eating poison ivy or fire: Co-evolution with a species is critically dependent on the manner of interaction between the species. That is, using a plant as a poison for millennia does not mean it's also safe to eat. It does mean it's likely to be a good poison.
Modern crops are different from older species, just by hybridization/breeding: Yes. But they're based on the genes of crops that have co-evolved with humans, using a process that's also naturally occurring (though using it somewhat artificially). And they may indeed be lacking benefits afforded by progenitor cultivars and species. Likely no one tested the resulting breeds for the subtle (and certainly not the unknown) benefits of the original species when selecting their "successes". Older species are probably better for you, generally, if not as tasty or pretty.
Many or most modern food plants are a novelty to any given person's ancestry: True, but not a novelty to humans in general. So the question here is how much pressure is put on the humans to evolve versus the crops? Also, there are differences between what foods different races can tolerate.
What's precaution [wikimedia.org] and what's science-stifling irrational fear:
As stupid as that may sound at first, there is actually a very important concept being asked about. What's prudent and what's ignorantly fearful?
We need to weigh several factors. The possibility and degree of benefit. The possibility and degree of harm. The amount of knowledge we have about the topic. The amount of knowledge we have about the scope of the topic. (Rumsfeld's "known knowns" and "unknown unknowns" idea.) My review of these leaves me on the side of playing it safe.
The primary wildcard that makes me sit up and pay close attention to folks playing with the genes of food crops is the fact that "Life finds a way." Crops breed out of our control. We've seen it already with GMO. If you're not using a time-tested method for changing crop genes (breeding, for example), you want to figure out more clearly what kind of results you'll be making. Fuck it up in a bad way and the "life finds a way" factor could leverage your mistake into a catastrophe.
But, even if life does tend to find a way, I'd be for scientists experimenting with Frankenstein GMO crops in tightly controlled environments, and testing the results over the course of a couple generations of test subjects. But I guess that's infeasible.
Likely we'll all be test subjects. And then we'll just have to wait a few generations to iron out the big problems, and a few hundred generations to smooth out the relationship, and a few hundred more generations to polish it out to a beautifully symbiotic sheen.
Re:Something we all should be concerned about... (Score:5, Informative)
It's way easier than that. All they need is to get one farmer in a region to use their seed, and the wind does the rest.