3 ms·

> The only thing that got farmers sued by Monsanto That is factually incorrect. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto

> The only thing that got farmers sued by Monsanto That is factually incorrect. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto-suing-farmers-for-accidentally-planting-patented-seeds/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-cla... The licensing cases were world news.

tptacek 7y ago
This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. Both elements are present in these cases: the planting of licensed seed, and the subsequent application of glyphosate to that crop. If you spray non-GM soybean crops with Roundup, you kill the crop.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I didn't, and obviously wouldn't, say that Roundup-Ready seeds aren't license-encumbered. What I said was that you don't get in legal trouble unless you plant them and then spray them with Roundup --- in other words, you can't "accidentally" use the product, because to use it, you have to do something that would kill an ordinary crop.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      Again, spraying with roundup is not the issue at the heart of the suit mentioned (he was using roundup BEFORE the GMO seeds were purchased by a neighbor). The issue is about planting without a license. The spraying of roundup was a step in the process used to trigger the licensing issue, after replanting what survived. He was never sued for using Roundup. Since you've reverted to downvoting and repeating yourself, you're wrong and are not interested in acknowledging it. GL with whatever.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        1. I haven't downvoted you. In fact: I don't think I even can; you can't downvote responses to your own comments on HN. 2. The guidelines ask you not to complain about downvoting. 3. Your argument boils down to "that thing you said is true". It's fine to just agree! We don't have to pretend to disagree just for the sake of appearances.

tptacek 7y ago

This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. Both elements are present in these cases: the planting of licensed seed, and the subsequent application of glyphosate to that crop. If you spray non-GM soybean crops with Roundup, you kill the crop.

Supermancho 7y ago
> This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I didn't, and obviously wouldn't, say that Roundup-Ready seeds aren't license-encumbered. What I said was that you don't get in legal trouble unless you plant them and then spray them with Roundup --- in other words, you can't "accidentally" use the product, because to use it, you have to do something that would kill an ordinary crop.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    Again, spraying with roundup is not the issue at the heart of the suit mentioned (he was using roundup BEFORE the GMO seeds were purchased by a neighbor). The issue is about planting without a license. The spraying of roundup was a step in the process used to trigger the licensing issue, after replanting what survived. He was never sued for using Roundup. Since you've reverted to downvoting and repeating yourself, you're wrong and are not interested in acknowledging it. GL with whatever.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      1. I haven't downvoted you. In fact: I don't think I even can; you can't downvote responses to your own comments on HN. 2. The guidelines ask you not to complain about downvoting. 3. Your argument boils down to "that thing you said is true". It's fine to just agree! We don't have to pretend to disagree just for the sake of appearances.