|
Monsanto
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6768757.html
AP INVESTIGATION: Monsanto seed biz role revealed By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD AP Agribusiness Writer © 2009 The Associated Press Dec. 13, 2009, 11:54PM ST. LOUIS ‹ Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found. With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts. Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes. Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments. .. . . Since GMOs don't produce larger or healthier crops, the above is a reminder of why we should be growing heirloom crops (open pollinated). -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
"Wildbilly" wrote in message ... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6768757.html AP INVESTIGATION: Monsanto seed biz role revealed By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD AP Agribusiness Writer © 2009 The Associated Press Dec. 13, 2009, 11:54PM ST. LOUIS Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found. With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts. Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes. Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments. . . . Since GMOs don't produce larger or healthier crops, the above is a reminder of why we should be growing heirloom crops (open pollinated). The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. Just my $.02 worth, Steve -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
"Steve Peek" wrote:
The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G |
Monsanto
Gary Woods wrote:
"Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." You are correct that the law is like that. Steve is correct that it ought not to be. David |
Monsanto
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: Gary Woods wrote: "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." You are correct that the law is like that. Steve is correct that it ought not to be. David Planting non-Monsanto, non-GMO but open-pollinated crops will make you a revolutionary, struggling against the tyranny of Monsanto. Save seeds. -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
Wildbilly wrote:
Planting non-Monsanto, non-GMO but open-pollinated crops will make you a revolutionary, Pssst! seedsavers.org Double-sekrit meeting next July. Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G |
Monsanto
"Wildbilly" wrote in message news:wldbilly-3712C3.07522914122009@c-61-68- Since GMOs don't produce larger or healthier crops, the above is a reminder of why we should be growing heirloom crops (open pollinated). I had toyed with heirlooms for a few years, but since finding this NG and all the info you guys have presented, I am no longer buying ANY seeds from anything other than organic companies that provide open-pollinated varieties and promote sustainability. I'd rather pay a dollar more for each seed packet than contribute to Monsanto's plan. Thanks to everyone here who has provided the info to open my eyes over the past year. --S. |
Monsanto
sometime in the recent past Suzanne D. posted this:
"Wildbilly" wrote in message news:wldbilly-3712C3.07522914122009@c-61-68- Since GMOs don't produce larger or healthier crops, the above is a reminder of why we should be growing heirloom crops (open pollinated). I had toyed with heirlooms for a few years, but since finding this NG and all the info you guys have presented, I am no longer buying ANY seeds from anything other than organic companies that provide open-pollinated varieties and promote sustainability. I'd rather pay a dollar more for each seed packet than contribute to Monsanto's plan. Thanks to everyone here who has provided the info to open my eyes over the past year. --S. Another reason to try saving your own is when your supplier for one reason or another can't get seed in a given year. I use Fedco in Maine and it's been 3 seasons they've been trying to Lutz Green Leaf beets back in stock. I think I'm getting a bucket of silica gel and try freezing some of next year's excess seed from suppliers & my garden. Good luck. -- Wilson 44.69, -67.3 |
Monsanto
"Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? |
Monsanto
gunner wrote:
"Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Is that right? David |
Monsanto
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Schmeiser claims his crop (from which he has always saved seed) was cross-pollinated by nearby Monsanto GMO plantings. Monsanto claimed there was too much of the genetic material to not be a direct descendent of their plants. The court ruled (though I don't have and probably wouldn't grok the actual ruling) in their favor. Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G |
Monsanto
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: gunner wrote: "Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Is that right? David Want to go messin' up a nice clean narrative, huh? Well, I kicked the topic around with a couple of biologists and they thought that GMO soy would have been pretty hard not to recognize, so Schmeiser may have known that he had something different. Did he knowingly plant GMO soy? He is known to be a seed saver, so there is the possibility that his field was cross pollinated by someone else's GMO crop. Apparently, ownership follows the patented genes. If the genes show up in you, for example, you would be, technically, the property of the Monsanto Corporation. It just gets curiouser and curiouser, here in the rabbit hole. -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
Wildbilly wrote:
Well, I kicked the topic around with a couple of biologists and they thought that GMO soy would have been pretty hard not to recognize, so Schmeiser may have known that he had something different. The case that I heard about (at the Seed Saver's meet a few years ago) was canola aka rape, rather than soy. Schmeiser claimed that he did indeed save seeds, but they were from his fields, and if GMO markers were there, it was cross-contamination and not his fault. What really needs to be decided is if anybody owns those genes once they escape into the wild. Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G |
Monsanto
In article ,
Gary Woods wrote: Wildbilly wrote: Well, I kicked the topic around with a couple of biologists and they thought that GMO soy would have been pretty hard not to recognize, so Schmeiser may have known that he had something different. The case that I heard about (at the Seed Saver's meet a few years ago) was canola aka rape, rather than soy. Schmeiser claimed that he did indeed save seeds, but they were from his fields, and if GMO markers were there, it was cross-contamination and not his fault. What really needs to be decided is if anybody owns those genes once they escape into the wild. Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G I sit corrected, canola it is ;O) The courts have ruled that if your seeds have the Monsanto added genetic material, they are Monsanto's property. If Round up ready corn pollutes traditional Mexican corn, the corn belongs to Monsanto. End of story. (Rant Mode Engaged) The jury may be out on glyphosate as an environmental contaminant but that it it leads to under-productive monocultures that require more and more of the herbicide to suppress increasingly resistant weeds, that the Cabbage Mosaic Virus inserted with altering DNA has the ability to turn on dormant genes, and that "spliceosomes" mistake alien transfer-RNA for more familiar encoded amino acids, and produce unique proteins ( allergens) are not in doubt. That our "new" war mongering President appointed a GMO enthusiast as Secretary of Agriculture will give you an idea of our problems. http://www.gene.ch/genet.html ------------------ VILSACK, GROSS WEIGH IN ON BIOTECH DECISION DES MOINES, Iowa - Gov. Tom Vilsack was cited as writing in a letter to the Biotechnology Industry Organization that a decision by a biotechnical industry group not to grow genetically engineered corn for pharmaceutical purposes in states such as Iowa is "a dangerous precedent," adding that "I feel this decision by for a pharma-crop ban is a knee-jerk reaction that is not fully warranted by the scientific evidence." BIO was cited as saying this week that its members had agreed not to grow pharmaceutical crops in states where it could contaminate neighboring crops intended for human consumption. That includes Iowa, and Vilsack reacted quickly, dashing off a letter asking the group for a clarification of its policy. Vilsack was quoted as saying, "I support food safety and security, but this decision appears to be overreaching. It seems more like an effort to exclude the nation's most productive farmers, small businesses and university researchers from this emerging industry." Vilsack has said the state could have a bright future in developing genetically engineered crops for the pharmaceutical industry. ------ At least when there was a Republican in the White House, it was easy to know who the bad guys were. Our "Robber Barons" just up graded their flak and you can be sure that all that will come out of health care reform is mandatory insurance coverage, and a lack of interest on the part of the citizens to revisit the problem anytime soon. (Rant Mode Disengaged) -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
"Wildbilly" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Woods wrote: Wildbilly wrote: Well, I kicked the topic around with a couple of biologists and they thought that GMO soy would have been pretty hard not to recognize, so Schmeiser may have known that he had something different. The case that I heard about (at the Seed Saver's meet a few years ago) was canola aka rape, rather than soy. Schmeiser claimed that he did indeed save seeds, but they were from his fields, and if GMO markers were there, it was cross-contamination and not his fault. What really needs to be decided is if anybody owns those genes once they escape into the wild. Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G I sit corrected, canola it is ;O) yes. The courts have ruled that if your seeds have the Monsanto added genetic material, they are Monsanto's property. Where is the case law on this? |
Monsanto
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... gunner wrote: "Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Is that right? David Yes, in the broad sense. My question was actually for Gary and Steve, David. Your response was very accurate. I just assumed you had read them. Federal Court Trial decision: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html Supreme Court of Canada's decision: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html As you said, it is established Case law in both the US and Canada. When you don't have a license to use a patent, you run the risk of being sued. There is a lot of hyperbole about ole Percy, which is understandably a part of the "he said, she said" of any legal dispute. Regardless of his being an upright citizen, the many "case summaries" on the Internet and here do not jibe with the actual courts records. The Federal Court outlining Mr. Schmeiser's farming practices is an interesting read. However, one could just read the salient points from the CA Supreme Court Document and then follow the arguments to get a good understanding of the issues. I encourage all to read both of them in their entirety (one pagers). Here are some excerpts for those who want just a Reader's Digest version: The Supreme Court of Canada's decision: 6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser's land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. 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). 87 However, the appellants in this case actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of their business operations. Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. In these circumstances, the presumption of use flowing from possession stands unrebutted. 96 The appellants argue, finally, that Monsanto's activities tread on the ancient common law property rights of farmers to keep that which comes onto their land. Just as a farmer owns the progeny of a "stray bull" which wanders onto his land, so Mr. Schmeiser argues he owns the progeny of the Roundup Ready Canola that came onto his field. However, the issue is not property rights, but patent protection. Ownership is no defence to a breach of the Patent Act. I would not think Ole Percy's argument is a cause celebre for the Eco argument, regardless of how the issue is spun. As for the business practice, yes that will have to be addressed. I suspect by the courts or a change in the law. That was a slick trick to openly license to so many researchers thereby prohibiting further use. Still, the issues need to be defined, not speculated on as shoulda, coulda, maybe. |
Monsanto
"gunner" wrote in message ... "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... gunner wrote: "Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Is that right? David Yes, in the broad sense. My question was actually for Gary and Steve, David. Your response was very accurate. I just assumed you had read them. Federal Court Trial decision: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html Supreme Court of Canada's decision: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html As you said, it is established Case law in both the US and Canada. When you don't have a license to use a patent, you run the risk of being sued. There is a lot of hyperbole about ole Percy, which is understandably a part of the "he said, she said" of any legal dispute. Regardless of his being an upright citizen, the many "case summaries" on the Internet and here do not jibe with the actual courts records. The Federal Court outlining Mr. Schmeiser's farming practices is an interesting read. However, one could just read the salient points from the CA Supreme Court Document and then follow the arguments to get a good understanding of the issues. I encourage all to read both of them in their entirety (one pagers). Here are some excerpts for those who want just a Reader's Digest version: The Supreme Court of Canada's decision: 6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser's land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. 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). 87 However, the appellants in this case actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of their business operations. Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. In these circumstances, the presumption of use flowing from possession stands unrebutted. 96 The appellants argue, finally, that Monsanto's activities tread on the ancient common law property rights of farmers to keep that which comes onto their land. Just as a farmer owns the progeny of a "stray bull" which wanders onto his land, so Mr. Schmeiser argues he owns the progeny of the Roundup Ready Canola that came onto his field. However, the issue is not property rights, but patent protection. Ownership is no defence to a breach of the Patent Act. I would not think Ole Percy's argument is a cause celebre for the Eco argument, regardless of how the issue is spun. As for the business practice, yes that will have to be addressed. I suspect by the courts or a change in the law. That was a slick trick to openly license to so many researchers thereby prohibiting further use. Still, the issues need to be defined, not speculated on as shoulda, coulda, maybe. It's my understanding that Schmeiser changed crops and when he was unable to control the weeds (read Monsanto rape plants) sued Monsanto and won. Steve |
Monsanto
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: "Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Is that right? David The most high-profile case of contamination is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, where Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement because his field was contaminated with Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola. The supreme court ruled that Percy was in violation of Monsanto's patent because the crops were growing on his land, but he was not required to pay Monsanto damages since he did not benefit financially from its presence.[28] On March 19, 2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court settlement whereby Monsanto will pay for the clean-up costs of the contamination which came to a total of $660 Canadian. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if any further contamination occurred.[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola For Monsanto's spin on the case see http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_tod..._schmeiser.asp This includes links to court decisions in 2001, 2002, and 2004, http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html. http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/20...002fca309.html. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html. For Schmeiser's spin see http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
"Steve Peek" wrote in message ... "gunner" wrote in message ... "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... gunner wrote: "Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: It's my understanding that Schmeiser changed crops and when he was unable to control the weeds (read Monsanto rape plants) sued Monsanto and won. Steve Percy lost his 2001 Federal trial and the 2004 Appeal because he infringed on patent rights. He was afforded some relief in that lawsuit from paying "Usage" damages in that round. I understand in 2008, Percy asked Monsanto to clear his land of RR plants but did not want to sign a clause in Monsanto's Volunteer Plant removal program so he sued for 10m$ (CA). I believe Percy settled out of court for ~600$ and a no gag order. I do not know of the actual clause Percy objected to. My Internet is not accessing certain servers this morning for some odd reason, but I will try to find and read it. |
Monsanto
"Wildbilly" wrote in message ... In article , "David Hare-Scott" wrote: "Gary Woods" wrote in message ... "Steve Peek" wrote: The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn downwind of the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be able to sue Monsanto for damages. You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's patented genes in your crop. I'm not making this up. Google "Percy Schmeiser." Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ? Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying monsanto's license. Is that right? David The most high-profile case of contamination is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, where Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement because his field was contaminated with Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola. The supreme court ruled that Percy was in violation of Monsanto's patent because the crops were growing on his land, but he was not required to pay Monsanto damages since he did not benefit financially from its presence.[28] On March 19, 2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court settlement whereby Monsanto will pay for the clean-up costs of the contamination which came to a total of $660 Canadian. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if any further contamination occurred.[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola For Monsanto's spin on the case see http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_tod..._schmeiser.asp This includes links to court decisions in 2001, 2002, and 2004, http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html. http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/20...002fca309.html. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html. For Schmeiser's spin see http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ Balanced reporting? Bravo for you Billy. |
Monsanto
"Steve" wrote in message ews.com... On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:29:09 -0800, "gunner" wrote: However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. I'm vehemently against GMO as a business model. The potential of Monsanto to control the world seed market terrifies me. The potential for disease in a (genetic) monoculture is equally frightening. But I believe Mr. Schmeiser gamed the system and is the last person who should be held up as a victim. I totally agree with everything you said. I am not against GMO research, natural or otherwise, My fear is about anyone having control of the world's seed or crop market. Back to the original post and rants, we will have to see what the"" "new" war mongering President appointed GMO enthusiast "" will do with/after the DOJ investigation. |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:29:09 -0800, "gunner" wrote: However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. I'm vehemently against GMO as a business model. The potential of Monsanto to control the world seed market terrifies me. The potential for disease in a (genetic) monoculture is equally frightening. But I believe Mr. Schmeiser gamed the system and is the last person who should be held up as a victim. Owning "life-forms" is gaming the system, in my opinion. If farmers can't control the pollen from their plants, so that it infests or pollutes a neighbor's seed, THEY should be held liable. GMOs don't produce more nutritious crops, or larger crops. They simply allow greater contamination of the soil, and in turn promote herbicide resistant weeds. In turn these crops are the most subsidized, and their cheap price results in them being turned into what we call "junk food" because they provide empty calories, devoid of nutrition. Moreover, there are many people who are concerned about their impact on human health. Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds. Bad laws make bad citizens -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
"Steve" wrote in message ews.com... On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:29 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds. C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the seed. I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing. Sure he knew, but wasn't that what mankind has done since the dawn of agriculture? That right should be protected if only by common sense. One always selects the best seed for next years crop. Just my $.02 worth, Steve |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:29 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds. C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the seed. I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing. IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he supposed to do? He has lost his seed crop. Does he have to plow his crop under, wasting time and expense, or find the patent holder and pay them for genetic properties that he, the farmer, didn't ask for or want? Legally, every seed that contains Monsanto's genetic profile, belongs to Monsanto. Who pays for the loss of diversity? Who pays for losses, if his customers don't want GMOs? Since my plants become Monsanto's plants when they cross fertilize, who pays me for my loss? GMOs should be grown in hermetically sealed enclosures, and the owner should be fined if he lets them escape. Bad laws, make bad citizens, and this one is a stinker. -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:29 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds. C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the seed. I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing. No victim? I'd say that we are all victims of Monsanto's efforts to reduce diversity, and to feed us untested (no feeding studies that I'm aware of) products. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd say, if you have wooden shoes, you should throw them in the gears. -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
|
Monsanto
|
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he supposed to do? What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument. What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate someone else's patented property. Sweet John Muir on ice...you've got me defending Monsanto. I need a shower. And a drink. Bad laws make "Bad" citizens. -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
In article , phorbin1
@yahoo.com says... There's concern over it crossing with turnips and other related vegetables. --So to continue to contain it Monsanto has to start testing for the gene in vegetables. substitute "control its use" for the words "contain it" |
Monsanto
"Steve" wrote in message ews.com... On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he supposed to do? What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument. What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate someone else's patented property. I say it's a basic, inherent human to isolate and propogate "better" food regardless of the source. Steve Sweet John Muir on ice...you've got me defending Monsanto. I need a shower. And a drink. |
Monsanto
"Steve" wrote in message ews.com... On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:28:01 -0500, "Steve Peek" wrote: I say it's a basic, inherent human to isolate and propogate "better" food regardless of the source. I propose we agree to disagree on this point. I do not believe in an inviolable right to ignore law for one's own convenience. That's all we're talking about here. and I say the law disregards human rights. |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:30:09 -0500, phorbin wrote: I would say that the gears should not belong to Monsanto or anyone at all and that seed saving must be defined as a human right. Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses? What's the difference? You don't sign a contract when you buy or receive a Jackson and Perkins' rose. Roses are (hopefully) perennials and only need to be purchased once, which is kinda traditional. Jackson and Perkins' roses won't change the genetic make-up of your neighbor's roses. Jackson and Perkins' roses won't lead to herbicide resistant weeds. On the other hand, your neighbors are free to use any genes that have wandered into their yard, should they want to start their own breeding program. There is no law to bar people from saving or selling Jackson and Perkins' rose blossoms or seed. That genetic marker means that, no matter how many years farmers spend developing seed for their specific locations, no matter how different the conserved seed is from the original Monsanto seed, the marker means that, now, the rest of the genome belongs to Monsanto too. Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if you wanted to fill an acre with self-made grafts of Jackson and Perkins' roses, I doubt you would have a problem, unless you went into a commercial venture to sell them. If you grow an acre of Monsanto's "Franken-plants" from conserved seed, their heavy-handed snitches and lawyers would be all over you, sales or not. Yes, they both have 20 year patents, but you must see the qualitative difference between controlling ornamental plants, and trying to monopolize the right to grow food. This is right in there with claiming the water from rainfall, just because you bought the water company. (see movie: "Corporation", Based on "The corporation : the pathological pursuit of profit and power" by Joel Bakan. Released as a motion picture in 2004. In better libraries near you.) As usual, "Bad laws make BAD citizens". http://www.seedalliance.org/index.ph...eminisMonsanto "There is a direct threat to our food system when we have a preponderance of genetic resources controlled by institutions whose only goal is profit," plant breeder Frank Morton expressed emphatically when asked for his perspective on the Monsanto acquisition. He went on to compare the present with the past, "When these services [breeding and production] were diffused amongst many individuals and groups with diverse motives, we had a much more diverse and healthy food system." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6768757.html "We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/op...=1&oref=slogin But it's not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may be a thing of the past. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805 -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:30:09 -0500, phorbin wrote: I would say that the gears should not belong to Monsanto or anyone at all and that seed saving must be defined as a human right. Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses? What's the difference? Dang, I always find what I'm looking for in the last place I look. http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
GMOs should be grown in hermetically sealed enclosures, and the owner
should be fined if he lets them escape. They should not be grown next to a farmer who saves seed, thats for sure. Its just a matter of time until some bug comes along and kills 2/3 the population. Then most of the worlds problems will be over. |
Monsanto
"Steve" wrote in message ews.com... On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he supposed to do? What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument. What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate someone else's patented property. There should be a law to protect others from Monsanto crops infecting surrounding fields. This is were the big problem lies. .. |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:53:30 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: Dang, I always find what I'm looking for in the last place I look. http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm Thanks for that Billy. I'm glad they did the right thing, at least the right thing by my standards. I would not have felt the same if Fedco had packaged Monsanto's seeds and sold them whilst pretending it was an "accident". I believe there will soon be a watershed case to determine the ultimate social responsibilities of Monsanto...and I really hope for our planet's sake that they are stopped (that's not hyperbole) but I don't think that Schmeiser's case is it. I think and feel that Schmeiser was wrong both morally and legally. shrug IMO. Legally? Sure. Morally? Rules in a knife fight? -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
In article . com,
Steve wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:48:30 -0800, Wildbilly wrote: In article . com, Steve wrote: Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses? What's the difference? You don't sign a contract when you buy or receive a Jackson and Perkins' rose. A patent, or more accurately the enforcement of patent, is not dependent upon contractual agreement. Roses are (hopefully) perennials and only need to be purchased once, which is kinda traditional. Jackson and Perkins' roses won't change the genetic make-up of your neighbor's roses. Really? There's absolutely no chance of that? Source, please. Now you are asking me to prove a negative. It would be better for you to prove the positive. Jackson and Perkins' roses won't lead to herbicide resistant weeds. On the other hand, your neighbors are free to use any genes that have wandered into their yard, should they want to start their own breeding program. Not patented ones... Do you know which watermelons taste the sweetest? There is no law to bar people from saving or selling Jackson and Perkins' rose blossoms or seed. But there is a law that prevents the propagation of their roses without consent. And there are laws about tearing tags off of mattresses, jay walking, and how much wine a home winemaker can make. Not many people are going to lose sleep about them, unless it is done flagrantly. Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if you wanted to fill an acre with self-made grafts of Jackson and Perkins' roses, I doubt you would have a problem, unless you went into a commercial venture to sell them. Whether or not you would "have a problem" is not the test. The fact of the matter is were one to do as you suggested, they would be in violation of patent and subject to J&P's relief request(s). As would the people who copy movies for themselves. These are called "bread crumb" sins. But there are no laws against the $600,000,000 from the health insurance companies that went into politicians pockets in the last two years. Hmmm. No laws for a "Peace Candidate" who becomes a war monger or calls for "Change you can believe in", and does the same ol', same ol'. ACORN gets cut off from federal spending, but weapon suppliers who rip-off the government get new contracts. Hmmm. ----- http://civileats.com/2009/04/30/you-...-say-monsanto/ You Say Tomato, I Say Monsanto April 30th, 2009 By Vanessa Barrington Scientific American recently published an article called How to Grow a Better Tomato: The Case against Heirloom Tomatoes. The author details how plant breeders are going about saving heirloom tomatoes from their own fatal flaws. The article was written in a combative tone with the author seemingly intent on provoking a knee-jerk reaction from lovers of good, real food not managed under laboratory conditions. It worked. The article garnered 80 comments, most from home gardeners taking issue with the errors peppering in the article like tomato seeds on a cutting board. The piece even provoked comments from some of the people in the article--namely employees of Monsanto. Seeing the name Monsanto connected with the concept of "improving" yet another food, makes it a little difficult to be neutral, but I'm going to try to look at this article with an open mind. The author says, "heirlooms are actually feeble and inbred--the defective product of breeding experiments that began during the Enlightenment and exploded thanks to enthusiastic backyard gardeners from Victorian England to Depression-era West Virginia. Heirlooms are the tomato equivalent of the pug--that "purebred" dog with the convoluted nose that snorts and hacks when it tries to catch a breath." .. . . Both the plant breeder and the Monsanto PR person saw fit to comment on the article for their own reasons due to misstatements in the article, such as the assertion that hybrid seeds are sterile. They are not. Since the article ran, the editor has changed some of the offending passages (marked by asterisks). The comment by Monsanto's PR person stated that they didn't like the title of the piece because they are doing what they are doing for the love of heirlooms....because they really want to save them. And that's when we get to the real point. The company that brought us PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, tried to patent the pig, and has unleashed a litany of misery worldwide doesn't want to save heirloom tomatoes for us. They want to patent and own them. Though the company has met with resistance to nearly every product it has tried to sell worldwide, it just keeps plugging along like a nightmarish telemarketer on endless redial. Monsanto won't stop until they own every seed on the planet. This article in Grist from last year estimates that with Monsanto's 2008 acquisition of Dutch tomato breeding company, De Ruiter Monsanto may now control as much as 85% of the US tomato market. Even though the PR person states in the comment section that Monsanto is doing this for commercial gardens, not home gardeners, I think it might be prudent for all home gardeners to lock up your heirloom tomato seeds in a safe place and watch which way the wind blows. -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Monsanto
|
Monsanto
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter