3 ms·

Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques? Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their p

by yucky 5y ago

Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques? Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their patents as it relates to our food supply is a non-starter.

gruez 5y ago
If they go rogue with their patent portfolio, you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties, leaving you no worse off than before.
- jlokier 5y ago
  That might not apply to Monsanto. Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow. 1. in the context of this discussion (ie. GMO cows) this is basically a non-issue. GMO sperm isn't going to "drift" from one pasture to another. 2. Can you substantiate that claim? The Wikipedia article lists a bunch of cases where the farmers were intentionally trying to breed monsanto seeds, which is different than the narrative you presented, which imply farmers being sued for accidental contamination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
    - ticviking 5y ago
      Til the GMO bull gets into your heifer's pen, or onto your land for a few days. There used to be range wars over "strange breeds" much less gene-edited breeds where I grew up, where the cows still largely wander federal land and get rounded up seasonally.
    - jlokier 5y ago
      On the first claim, looks like you're right and I learned something. It is interesting to see the Canada Supreme Court were split 5-4 on the Schmeiser decision and did not award any damages to Monsanto, (but that doesn't mean they believed the second year of crop growth was by accidental contamination). On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba). The second claim isn't about GMO spreading directly, but rather about how you may have no choice but to grow the GMO variety (and pay for it, and lose revenue if you were growing something more profitable) when in the neighbourhood of other farms growing it, which has a similar practical effect on individual farmers regarding "you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties". Lengthier article here (https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-inside-monsanto-and-basfs-moves-to-force-dicamba-on-farmers/ https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...) "‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers" [...] [...] "His neighbors who spray dicamba are frustrated with him, he said. There’s an easy solution to avoid damage, they tell him: Buy Monsanto’s seeds" [...] "As the damage has continued, he said, more and more of his clients are “feeling bullied into” buying the dicamba-tolerant crops. Others tell him, they have to spray dicamba or else they can’t control the weeds."
      - gruez 5y ago
        >On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba). The second claim isn't about GMO spreading directly, but rather about how you may have no choice but to grow the GMO variety (and pay for it, and lose revenue if you were growing something more profitable) when in the neighbourhood of other farms growing it, which has a similar practical effect on individual farmers regarding "you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties". >Lengthier article here (https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...) "‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers" [...] [...] "His neighbors who spray dicamba are frustrated with him, he said. There’s an easy solution to avoid damage, they tell him: Buy Monsanto’s seeds" [...] "As the damage has continued, he said, more and more of his clients are “feeling bullied into” buying the dicamba-tolerant crops. Others tell him, they have to spray dicamba or else they can’t control the weeds." I agree that this situation is bad and monsanto was in the wrong. However, I don't agree with the characterization of this as a GMO problem. The problem as I see it is that one party (the farmer spraying dicamba) is harming another party (the farmer that's not using monsanto seeds). In other words, a tort. This is something that the legal system protects against, and the article mentions that the injured farmer has won a lawsuit, so it seems like everything's working as intended. Blaming it on GMO doesn't really make sense. If GMOs weren't involved, and the pesticides merely poisoned the drinking water, that wouldn't magically make the situation okay.
  - Taywee 5y ago
    You have been misled by Food Inc. I was as well. Reading up on the case and finding out how disingenuous it was really made me angry.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
kickout 5y ago
They play about as nice as Microsoft and Google and other big tech on protecting patents. Also, Monsanto was purchased by Bayer (a German company).
datavirtue 5y ago
Large corporations across many industries have a history of identifying the harm from their products, hiding the studies, and then lobbying in the opposite direction of the findings. In short, intentional criminal behavior, shielded by regulators--who they control indirectly.
driverdan 5y ago
The issue of patents is separate from the issue of GMO technology.
- yucky 5y ago
  Well the GMO technology gets patented, and patents are routinely abused. That is unacceptable for our food sources.

by yucky 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

If they go rogue with their patent portfolio, you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties, leaving you no worse off than before.

jlokier 5y ago
That might not apply to Monsanto. Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow. 1. in the context of this discussion (ie. GMO cows) this is basically a non-issue. GMO sperm isn't going to "drift" from one pasture to another. 2. Can you substantiate that claim? The Wikipedia article lists a bunch of cases where the farmers were intentionally trying to breed monsanto seeds, which is different than the narrative you presented, which imply farmers being sued for accidental contamination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
  - ticviking 5y ago
    Til the GMO bull gets into your heifer's pen, or onto your land for a few days. There used to be range wars over "strange breeds" much less gene-edited breeds where I grew up, where the cows still largely wander federal land and get rounded up seasonally.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    On the first claim, looks like you're right and I learned something. It is interesting to see the Canada Supreme Court were split 5-4 on the Schmeiser decision and did not award any damages to Monsanto, (but that doesn't mean they believed the second year of crop growth was by accidental contamination). On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba). The second claim isn't about GMO spreading directly, but rather about how you may have no choice but to grow the GMO variety (and pay for it, and lose revenue if you were growing something more profitable) when in the neighbourhood of other farms growing it, which has a similar practical effect on individual farmers regarding "you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties". Lengthier article here (https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-inside-monsanto-and-basfs-moves-to-force-dicamba-on-farmers/ https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...) "‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers" [...] [...] "His neighbors who spray dicamba are frustrated with him, he said. There’s an easy solution to avoid damage, they tell him: Buy Monsanto’s seeds" [...] "As the damage has continued, he said, more and more of his clients are “feeling bullied into” buying the dicamba-tolerant crops. Others tell him, they have to spray dicamba or else they can’t control the weeds."
    - gruez 5y ago
      >On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba). The second claim isn't about GMO spreading directly, but rather about how you may have no choice but to grow the GMO variety (and pay for it, and lose revenue if you were growing something more profitable) when in the neighbourhood of other farms growing it, which has a similar practical effect on individual farmers regarding "you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties". >Lengthier article here (https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...) "‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers" [...] [...] "His neighbors who spray dicamba are frustrated with him, he said. There’s an easy solution to avoid damage, they tell him: Buy Monsanto’s seeds" [...] "As the damage has continued, he said, more and more of his clients are “feeling bullied into” buying the dicamba-tolerant crops. Others tell him, they have to spray dicamba or else they can’t control the weeds." I agree that this situation is bad and monsanto was in the wrong. However, I don't agree with the characterization of this as a GMO problem. The problem as I see it is that one party (the farmer spraying dicamba) is harming another party (the farmer that's not using monsanto seeds). In other words, a tort. This is something that the legal system protects against, and the article mentions that the injured farmer has won a lawsuit, so it seems like everything's working as intended. Blaming it on GMO doesn't really make sense. If GMOs weren't involved, and the pesticides merely poisoned the drinking water, that wouldn't magically make the situation okay.
- Taywee 5y ago
  You have been misled by Food Inc. I was as well. Reading up on the case and finding out how disingenuous it was really made me angry.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

kickout 5y ago

They play about as nice as Microsoft and Google and other big tech on protecting patents. Also, Monsanto was purchased by Bayer (a German company).

datavirtue 5y ago

Large corporations across many industries have a history of identifying the harm from their products, hiding the studies, and then lobbying in the opposite direction of the findings. In short, intentional criminal behavior, shielded by regulators--who they control indirectly.

driverdan 5y ago

The issue of patents is separate from the issue of GMO technology.

yucky 5y ago
Well the GMO technology gets patented, and patents are routinely abused. That is unacceptable for our food sources.