3 ms·

This hasn't happened, or you need a citation please.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
acqq 11y ago
I've searched a little, found "Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted," obviously something that can be considered a pro-GMO article for the way how the specific "myth" is formulated, but it's good enough to find out what's being claimed: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top... In short, if the farmer would select only the plants that survive the herbicide (effectively only those that over cross-pollination get "Monsanto" genes), they could sue him, and they did sue Schmeiser (and the farmer would probably lose as in the given example "The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent" and the farmer lost). But if the farmer has just the "trace amounts of GMOs" in his crops they wouldn't (and they "will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong."(!)) The myth as stated in the article is "Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen." Note "traces". Only that is a myth. But that they sue when somebody sows the seeds with the genes from their seed that he hasn't bought from them, even if he obtained them by cross-pollination, it happened, they sued, and they won the case.
- secabeen 11y ago
  So it takes an active step by the farmer who is sowing seeds he/she has reason to know are protected.
  - acqq 11y ago
    The "active" step is simply keeping the seeds from the plants you sowed on your land with your own seeds that survived the herbicides. Schmeiser claims that he was doing breeding of his own seeds for 50 years. Why shouldn't he?
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Ok, yes they will sue when a farmer willingly and deliberately uses cross pollinate seeds. I see nothing controversial there though.
  - acqq 11y ago
    It is controversial as the farmer was actually doing breeding himself 50 years using his own seeds. His actions were the actions of the breeder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Sc... "In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]" Nobody disputes that it was a case of cross-pollination. He was sued for keeping the results of that cross-pollination. Why shouldn't he if he didn't use the seeds from Monsanto but his own?
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      Because the seeds weren't his own anymore. What, you think he believes he bred a roundup ready crop? That's why he lost the case, he definitely knew what he was doing.
      - acqq 11y ago
        How come the seeds aren't his own? The complete genetic structure of his seeds is certainly different to the Monsanto ones. It's just that the one allele got transferred via cross-pollination and remained in his own seeds he preserved, giving the seeds one specific property which is the same as in the Monsanto seeds. Breeding is selecting your own seeds based on their properties, and Schmeiser was a breeder.
    - 11y ago
at-fates-hands 11y ago
Citation: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmer... In May 2003, the Center for Food Safety embarked on a project to determine the extent to which American farmers have been impacted by litigation arising from the use of patented genetically engineered crops. After extensive research and numerous interviews with farmers and lawyers, CFS found that Monsanto, the world’s leading agricultural biotechnology company, has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed. 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. 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

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

acqq 11y ago

I've searched a little, found "Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted," obviously something that can be considered a pro-GMO article for the way how the specific "myth" is formulated, but it's good enough to find out what's being claimed: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top... In short, if the farmer would select only the plants that survive the herbicide (effectively only those that over cross-pollination get "Monsanto" genes), they could sue him, and they did sue Schmeiser (and the farmer would probably lose as in the given example "The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent" and the farmer lost). But if the farmer has just the "trace amounts of GMOs" in his crops they wouldn't (and they "will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong."(!)) The myth as stated in the article is "Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen." Note "traces". Only that is a myth. But that they sue when somebody sows the seeds with the genes from their seed that he hasn't bought from them, even if he obtained them by cross-pollination, it happened, they sued, and they won the case.

secabeen 11y ago
So it takes an active step by the farmer who is sowing seeds he/she has reason to know are protected.
- acqq 11y ago
  The "active" step is simply keeping the seeds from the plants you sowed on your land with your own seeds that survived the herbicides. Schmeiser claims that he was doing breeding of his own seeds for 50 years. Why shouldn't he?
vectorjohn 11y ago
Ok, yes they will sue when a farmer willingly and deliberately uses cross pollinate seeds. I see nothing controversial there though.
- acqq 11y ago
  It is controversial as the farmer was actually doing breeding himself 50 years using his own seeds. His actions were the actions of the breeder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Sc... "In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]" Nobody disputes that it was a case of cross-pollination. He was sued for keeping the results of that cross-pollination. Why shouldn't he if he didn't use the seeds from Monsanto but his own?
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    Because the seeds weren't his own anymore. What, you think he believes he bred a roundup ready crop? That's why he lost the case, he definitely knew what he was doing.
    - acqq 11y ago
      How come the seeds aren't his own? The complete genetic structure of his seeds is certainly different to the Monsanto ones. It's just that the one allele got transferred via cross-pollination and remained in his own seeds he preserved, giving the seeds one specific property which is the same as in the Monsanto seeds. Breeding is selecting your own seeds based on their properties, and Schmeiser was a breeder.
  - 11y ago

at-fates-hands 11y ago

Citation: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmer... In May 2003, the Center for Food Safety embarked on a project to determine the extent to which American farmers have been impacted by litigation arising from the use of patented genetically engineered crops. After extensive research and numerous interviews with farmers and lawyers, CFS found that Monsanto, the world’s leading agricultural biotechnology company, has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed. 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. 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