> they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. Here is the case with Mr. White: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02

> they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. Here is the case with Mr. White: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804-0.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pd... As you can see by reading it, it is not over seed saving for his own farm. It is over him intentionally growing 120 acres of roundup-ready crops for the purpose of producing his own RR seeds to sell commercially. "Yeah. I took advantage of it.", is a quote from Mr. White on page 7. The court found this in violation of the agreement he'd signed when he bought the seeds, and he lost the case. I think your example of Mr. White is illustrating exactly my point, that these cases have been misrepresented by anti-GMO groups to further their agenda. > What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product Yes. But this is not what you said or what I addressed. You said RR resistance was a "one way process". This is incorrect. I agree with the point that you are making here about misuse and manufacturers like Monsanto being complicit in that misuse.