Splicing genes from other organisms into plants. What could go wrong?
Splicing genes from other organisms into plants. What could go wrong?
And the Monsanto Protection Act (yes, that's really what they named it, ballsy huh?) rider made it in with the law the President signed yesterday. It's probably time to start looking for another planet to live on. 
In reply to slefain:
Taken in a Whole Foods store 15 minutes ago
I have heard of some of the lawsuits against the farmers by Monsanto. I believe in each of those cases, the farmers signed an agreement when they buy the Monsanto seeds that they will return any unused seed and will not save seed from the crop they grow to plant the next year. I have never heard of a farmer being sued because the Monsanto pollen fertilized his non-Monsanto crop. Can anybody produce a source where this happened? Seems to me Monsanto could be sued because their seed contaminated a farmers Heirloom crop.
There are other seed companies out there. I have not heard of them being so vicious.
yamaha wrote: In reply to slefain: Taken in a Whole Foods store 15 minutes ago
Sweet jesus! A random fruiting!
alfadriver wrote: The other is pollination/propogation. So if you live next door to someone planing Monsanto patented soy. Whereas you plant your historic family seed that you've separated over time. Next season comes along, and due to natural pollenation, some of that GMO strain has gotten into your seed. You go and separate it, and want to re-plant. But Monsanto sues you for using their seed and patent. You did nothing wrong, technically- their stuff has trespassed onto your land. Yet they can sue you to prevent you from using your own seed. This has happened all over the country, and now it's apparently law of the land. I'd hate to be a farmer.
Can someone provide links about this?
In reply to spitfirebill:
Woah buddy, yes, Monsanto has sued over their pollen fertilizing an innocent farmer's crop. Many, many, many times. And won. And their is no heirloom seed after a Monsanto crop as they have a "terminator" gene built in so that the seed after harvest is sterile, so you have to buy more seed from them. Go watch "The Future of Food".
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/monsanto-protection-act-slips-silently-through-us-congress_032013
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/reports/1770/seed-giants-vs-us-farmers
Come on people, this is the company that made DDT and Agent Orange!
http://www.panna.org/blog/supreme-court-battle-farmer-v-monsanto
Today, 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer Hugh Vernon Bowman will face off with Monsanto in front of the Supreme Court. Five years ago, Monsanto sued Bowman for seed patent infringement and won. Now the high court will hear the farmer's appeal.
Monsanto's aggressive pursuit of patent infringement lawsuits like Bowman v. Monsanto is well documented in a recent report by the Center for Food Safety and Save Our Seeds. As of January 2013, the corporation had filed 144 suits against 410 farmers in 27 states. Corn and soybean growers across the country will be watching the outcome of today's case very closely.
For years now, farmers have been forced to pay for ever-more expensive seeds that don't perform as advertised and are increasingly the only market-viable (i.e. "elite") seeds they can find. When they look to other seed sources, they are dogged by patent infringement lawsuits.
Taking a stand against Monsanto's harassment of farmers, Bowman continues to assert his right to save seed and rejects the corporate giant's claims that he violated patent law. Who owns seeds?
The crux of the case hinges on whether Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered (GE) plants ever expire. As Andrew Pollack writes in the New York Times:
"At stake in Mr. Bowman’s case is whether patents on seeds — or other things that can self-replicate — extend beyond the first generation of the products."
Bowman readily admits that he bought conventional seed mixed with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready seed from a grain elevator, planted it and then saved the next generation of seed. He acknowledges that he deliberately saved the seed (as farmers have done for thousands of years), and even admits he knew he was saving seed from RoundUp Ready plants, because those were the only plants in his field that had survived his application of Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, RoundUp.
But Bowman maintains that he has done nothing either wrong or illegal, because a) grain elevators are allowed to buy both kinds of seeds from farmers and are not required to segregate patented GE seed from conventional seed and b) when he bought the mixed seed (known technically as “commodity seed”) he never signed any kind of “technology agreement” with Monsanto restricting him from saving that seed. A chink in Monsanto's armor
Back in 2008, the Supreme Court decided there are limits to just how far a patent-holder can go in forcing those further down a supply chain from continuing to license their patents. The limit is known as “patent exhaustion,” and Monsanto is demanding it be released from this limitation.
If the Supreme Court finds in favor of the corporation in Bowman v. Monsanto, then Monsanto will retain patent rights over not only the seed a farmer buys this season, but all future generations of that seed as well.
If the Court finds in favor of Bowman, Monsanto will still hold most of the cards in the deck, but farmers will have reclaimed a small amount of control.
The Supreme Court's decision on today's case will impact the livelihood of countless farmers. History of a bully
Over the years, Monsanto has committed tremendous resources to watch-dogging farmers and pursuing litigating: 75 employees and a dedicated $10 million dollar budget as of 2003, according to the CFS report released last week.
Report authors also cite that by the end of 2012, Monsanto had received over $423.5 million from patent infringement lawsuits against farmers and farm businesses, although "depicting the full scope of the industry’s pursuit of farmers is nearly impossible because many cases are settled by confidential out-of-court settlements."
If the Supreme Court decides in favor of Bowman in this suit, it will set an important precedent and potentially curb Monsanto's ability to legally harass farmers across the U.S.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Taken outside the GRM Headquarters 10min ago....
RUN TOM RUN!!!!! 
Mitchell wrote: ... growers who would prefer not to abide by the restrictions of patented plants are welcome to use heirloom varieties...
Except when Monsanto pushed bills into law making it illegal to use the seeds you grew on your land last year as well as the info Jav posted above.
If I purchase the seeds, I should have the right to store seeds for next year. Monsanto, and the purchased gubment doesn't think so.
In reply to DrBoost:
In the closest I'll ever come to touching Monsanto with a ten foot pole, I recognize the legal viability of a contract which reads "I agree to buy these seeds from Monsanto for $X and agree that I will not replant from the crop grown from these seeds". It seems like a terrible idea, but you can sign that contract and be bound by its terms.
That is, unless you're talking about a bill which disallows the replanting of seeds from the previous crop across the board and regardless of where the seeds originally came from. We're already well into territory that seems insane to me, so I hesitate to suggest that they couldn't possibly have just outlawed farming as we've known it since the dawn of agriculture in favor of having to purchase commercial seeds every year from someone...
yamaha wrote: RUN TOM RUN!!!!!
Hey... "Tom"... Which one are you cheering!?
ransom wrote:yamaha wrote: RUN TOM RUN!!!!!Hey... "Tom"... Which one are you cheering!?
Good question I suppose.......Which Tom should we be cheering for?
CNN recreation of their news crew under attack outside Atlanta an hour ago...there were no survivors. 
ransom wrote: In reply to DrBoost: In the closest I'll ever come to touching Monsanto with a ten foot pole, I recognize the legal viability of a contract which reads "I agree to buy these seeds from Monsanto for $X and agree that I will not replant from the crop grown from these seeds". It seems like a terrible idea, but you can sign that contract and be bound by its terms. That is, unless you're talking about a bill which disallows the replanting of seeds from the previous crop across the board and **regardless of where the seeds originally came from**. We're already well into territory that seems insane to me, so I hesitate to suggest that they couldn't possibly have just outlawed farming as we've known it since the dawn of agriculture in favor of having to purchase commercial seeds every year from *someone*...
Unless I misunderstood (very possible) they are trying to outlaw a farmer saving seeds from this years crop to use next year. They want you to have to buy seeds every year. Eventually you will get their seeds in your fields, intentional or not. Then they own you.
DrBoost wrote:ransom wrote: In reply to DrBoost: In the closest I'll ever come to touching Monsanto with a ten foot pole, I recognize the legal viability of a contract which reads "I agree to buy these seeds from Monsanto for $X and agree that I will not replant from the crop grown from these seeds". It seems like a terrible idea, but you can sign that contract and be bound by its terms. That is, unless you're talking about a bill which disallows the replanting of seeds from the previous crop across the board and **regardless of where the seeds originally came from**. We're already well into territory that seems insane to me, so I hesitate to suggest that they couldn't possibly have just outlawed farming as we've known it since the dawn of agriculture in favor of having to purchase commercial seeds every year from *someone*...Unless I misunderstood (very possible) they are trying to outlaw a farmer saving seeds from this years crop to use next year. They want you to have to buy seeds every year. Eventually you will get their seeds in your fields, intentional or not. Then they own you.
Maybe I don't understand it, but the jist of this is you cannot save seed produced from Monsanto seed to plant next year. Yes, they want you to buy seed every year or you must pay a $15 per acre fee to plant the seed. I have no problem with this, because it is clear from day one when you sign the agreement. Monsanto spent a lot of money to develop these seeds. I do not condone the way they are bullying a lot of people who apparently had no connection with their products.
I used to be in the R&D part of the ag-chem business. One of the compnaies I worked for eventually went belly up when they tried to control the world wheat market with hybridized wheat. But it wasn't GMO per se.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9WlE
Yes it French and a bad movie but it explains what this company is really about.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Issues-and-Answers.aspx
None of that makes you feel good.
Don't patents expire in a fairly short amount of time?
In reply to spitfirebill:
Yeah, and that's all fine and dandy, the issue at hand is those patented plants end up cross pollinating the not patented plants. Then Monsanto sneaks around finds this out, and everybody down wind of the farm licensed with them is now getting sued out of existence because nature facilitated theft of their design.
Or to quote Carlin, "Its all bullE36 M3, and its bad for ya".
spitfirebill wrote:DrBoost wrote:Maybe I don't understand it, but the jist of this is you cannot save seed produced from Monsanto seed to plant next year. Yes, they want you to buy seed every year or you must pay a $15 per acre fee to plant the seed. I have no problem with this, because it is clear from day one when you sign the agreement. Monsanto spent a lot of money to develop these seeds. I do not condone the way they are bullying a lot of people who apparently had no connection with their products. I used to be in the R&D part of the ag-chem business. One of the compnaies I worked for eventually went belly up when they tried to control the world wheat market with hybridized wheat. But it wasn't GMO per se.ransom wrote: In reply to DrBoost: In the closest I'll ever come to touching Monsanto with a ten foot pole, I recognize the legal viability of a contract which reads "I agree to buy these seeds from Monsanto for $X and agree that I will not replant from the crop grown from these seeds". It seems like a terrible idea, but you can sign that contract and be bound by its terms. That is, unless you're talking about a bill which disallows the replanting of seeds from the previous crop across the board and **regardless of where the seeds originally came from**. We're already well into territory that seems insane to me, so I hesitate to suggest that they couldn't possibly have just outlawed farming as we've known it since the dawn of agriculture in favor of having to purchase commercial seeds every year from *someone*...Unless I misunderstood (very possible) they are trying to outlaw a farmer saving seeds from this years crop to use next year. They want you to have to buy seeds every year. Eventually you will get their seeds in your fields, intentional or not. Then they own you.
Wrap your head around this. You're a farmer and you are planting seeds that are NOT Monsanto demon seed. One day a Monsanto guy does an audit on your crop and finds Monsanto-panted DNA. They sue you. You are SURE that you never purchased Monsanto seed. Then your neighbor (miles down the road) testifies in court that he was transporting seed, Monsanto seed down the road. He then testifies that his tarp blew off and "enough seed to seed 10 acres blew onto his field. I saw it". That's right where the auditor found Monsanto DNA. Monsanto sues him, and wins. He DID NOT buy the seed.
The other issue, the bigger issue is this. Monsanto is trying to make it illegal for farmers to store seed from one year to the next, no matter where the seed came from. They know that if you are buying seed each year you will eventually get GMO seed since it's often mixed to some extend at the point of sale.
Watch one of many documentaries and you'll see how deep they are entrenched in government.
DrBoost wrote:Mitchell wrote: ... growers who would prefer not to abide by the restrictions of patented plants are welcome to use heirloom varieties...Except when Monsanto pushed bills into law making it illegal to use the seeds you grew on your land last year as well as the info Jav posted above. If I purchase the seeds, I should have the right to store seeds for next year. Monsanto, and the purchased gubment doesn't think so.
Growing Monsanto seed requires that growers abide by the contract restrictions. The article that Javelin posted indicates that the grower used the daughter seed produced from a cross between Monsanto and non-Monsanto seed, not that the original parent seed was saved and planted the subsequent year. Creating the GMO component was the hard part and is the company's whole value proposition. Purchasing a car does not entitle the car's owner to the tooling equipment required to manufacture and sell as many cars as he or she wants.
The Article said: "... [he] even admits he knew he was saving seed from RoundUp Ready plants, because those were the only plants in his field that had survived his application of Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, RoundUp."
To understand why he is applying RoundUp to plants requires an understanding of how the transgene works. Why do growers use it? It allows growers to kill weeds at a later stage, so that weeds that emerge afterwards do not stand a chance, which decreases the amount of applied fertilizer that reaches weeds. Like it or not, it is a very efficient system. Efficiency is important when the scale of planting is hundreds of thousands of acres.
In reply to Mitchell:
Ok, but what about Monsanto going after folks who's crops were naturally cross pollinated with Monsanto plants? They did nothing, and are getting screwed.
I'm reading up on articles that have been posted; I'll chime in later, if you care what I have to say.
mtn wrote: In reply to Mitchell: Ok, but what about Monsanto going after folks who's crops were naturally cross pollinated with Monsanto plants? They did nothing, and are getting screwed.
Yeah, it appears I can't make a point. I understand what THAT grower did. But there are lots of others. Heck, how does Monsanto even have the power/balls to go onto a farmers field just to see if he happens to have Monsanto "product" on it. What other company can come onto YOUR property, unannounced and uninvited to inspect YOUR personal stuff?
Tom Suddard wrote: Sounds like a plan. You get into the hopper first.
Actually I think good old mother nature is going to take car of that little problem one way or another on her own with or without the "help" of mankind.
Yen vs. Yang
Yep, I think we've far exceeded our carrying capacity. I'm all for gradual population decline, but the reality is that until we bring all the less economically developed countries up to snuff education and sanitation wise, the world's population is going to keep growing. That's another thread, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
You'll need to log in to post.
