14 ms·

5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

captainsinclair 14y ago
From the article, "The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges."
dangoldin 14y ago
If anyone's seen "Food, Inc" they also mention the abusive practices of Monsanto of suing anyone that poses a threat to their business model. I don't know much about the space but there may be some interesting patent implications from the lawsuit.
conanite 14y ago
Monsanto: the MAFIAA and patent trolls of agriculture. May the farmers win. And may your amaranth grow and prosper. [0] [0] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resistant_superweeds.php http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resis...
wheaties 14y ago
Good for them. I've never met a company that could sue you because a honey bee or some other naturally event that has been occurring for hundreds of years happened. To that I'm referring to Monsato's practice of suing farmers who haven't used their seed variety having their fields cross pollinated with another farmer's fields who is using Monato's seed products. Really?! Ugh.
- skosuri 14y ago
  No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    You might want to read the actual findings, they put patent law above rights of property holder. Not knowing might have mitigated the damages, but it would have not stopped the lawsuit.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      Of course they did, the whole point of patent law is that it restricts what you can do with your own property. I think it would be nice if ignorance was an excuse in patent cases, but the fact that it isn't is a big part of why our current patent system is so toxic in general, especially in software.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        I think the idea that someone can pollute your property and then charge you for it is a grievous violation of property rights. It is not the patent I object to, it is the idea that a polluter can "corrupt" my crop and then charge me for it.
        Symmetry 14y ago
        I also think the idea that you can sue someone just for seeds that blew in is absurd. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened. In each case where someone was sued by Monsanto they were alleged to have deliberately tried to save only the GM seeds. And of course they denied it and said that it wasn't deliberate, but what they were charged with was deliberate patent violation.
        protomyth 14y ago
        http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... has some cases of their lawsuit fun
        14y ago
stevoski 14y ago
This article makes some rather terrible claims. I've never heard of readersupportednews.org before. Are there similar articles in well-known, respectable publications? (Note: I'm not claiming the site is disreputable, I've just never heard of the site and want to read more on sites (on in publications) I know.)
- AgentConundrum 14y ago
  Here's a link from RT.com (Russia Today): https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/ https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/ I have no idea if they're trustworthy either, but Wikipedia[1] had this to say about them: > RT is the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after BBC News and the first most-watched news channel worldwide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29
  - maratd 14y ago
    RT is most certainly not the most-watched news channel worldwide. That doesn't even make any sense. RT is, however, a propaganda tool of Putin and friends. I most certainly wouldn't trust their numbers or anything else they publish for that matter.
  - omonra 14y ago
    Please don't quote anything from RT - it's as useful as quoting Gobbles. While there is a chance it could be true, the association itself makes anything quoted extremely suspect.
    - AgentConundrum 14y ago
      Good to know. I had no idea what it was, but it looked more legit than the OP. Wikipedia seemed to back up the idea that it was a proper source, so I linked it.
      - omonra 14y ago
t4nkd 14y ago
Tried to read this article, hit some kind of NPR style donation paywall... 0/10, wouldn't click.
- ElliotH 14y ago
  Nice easy skip button in the top corner.
- emilis_info 14y ago
  Or use NoScript: http://noscript.net/ http://noscript.net/
- SIDD 14y ago
  There is a timeout on this "paywall", just wait for 15 seconds
latch 14y ago
This may be naive, but why isn't the market protecting farmers? Are subsidies involved? Why don't they just use normal seeds or other seeds? Weren't these limitations known ahead of time? Why did the farmers make a deal with the devil? Why can't they switch back?
- va_coder 14y ago
  It's my understanding Monsanto isn't a company that relies on free markets. They use lawyers heavily. If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non customer's farm and the non customer doesn't actively try to remove the Monsanto seeds, they sue. They are like the seed mafia.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    And do they win such claims? Seems to me the farmer whose field was polluted should be able sue for damages instead?
    - knieveltech 14y ago
      Your average farmer doesn't have the resources required to field a lawsuit against a multi-national company.
      - Tichy 14y ago
        Then that seems to be a flaw in the law system. Still, even if they don't start it, why would the company win frivolous claims?
        knieveltech 14y ago
        Surely you don't think that frivolous claims are never won?
        Tichy 14y ago
dizidoro 14y ago
why is this on HN? for more important and interesting the story is, its not really what i want to read on HN. I already have other sources for that.
crikli 14y ago
The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other than my iPad as I know I need to provide more than this here on HN. :)
- maxerickson 14y ago
  The lawsuit is in Brazil. The claims about people killing themselves are from India. So U.S. corn prices probably don't quite factor in. Also, if you are importing diesel and fertilizer, you aren't quite self sustaining (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I like cheap and available food, but the popular idea of sustainability is about accounting for and balancing flows of energy, not keeping land productive).
  - sp332 14y ago
    That's sustainable energy sources. Sustainable farming is different.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      My reading was that the comment meant "We're still here", not "We are among the best in the world at minimizing inputs".
      - crikli 14y ago
        I meant both. See my response above but minimizing inputs is the core motivation of most of our family's technology and infrastructure investments. GPS integration alone has allowed us to use the minimal amount of fertilizer as we're able to use historical data to know which parts of the field need which amounts of what.
    - glesica 14y ago
Create 14y ago
"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement." Dow provided the chemicals that Washington used from 1961 onward to destroy crops and forests in South Vietnam, drenching the country with Agent Orange. These poisons contain dioxin, one of the most lethal carcinogens known, affecting millions of Vietnamese and many U.S. soldiers. To this day in Vietnam, aborted fetuses and deformed infants are very likely the effects of these crimes - though, in light of Washington's refusal to investigate, we have only the studies of Vietnamese scientists and independent analysts. Joining the Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of the horrendous 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of history's worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands and injured more than half a million. Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the disaster, was taken over by Dow, for whom the matter is of no slight concern. In February, Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation for the victims and prosecution of those responsible." America's Rank Hypocrisy, By Noam Chomsky, AlterNet 05 June 12
- peterwwillis 14y ago
  So Vietnam is opposed to a company sponsoring the Olympics because they made a product that the USA used to deform and kill their people. How does that make sense? Shouldn't they be angry at the country that actually dumped the chemicals on them? If somebody gets a gun and shoots you, you sue the guy who shot you, not the company that made the bullets. (Well, unless you just want more money, which in our litigious society might actually work for you...)
  - Roboprog 14y ago
    It's possible they are pissed at both. Just sayin'.
  - Retric 14y ago
daaif 14y ago
http://readersupportednews.org http://readersupportednews.org is down
sigzero 14y ago
About freaking time! Monsanto is EVIL.
joseflavio 14y ago
Am I the only one getting this error: "Database Error: Unable to connect to the database:Could not connect to MySQL" ? I think the traffic from HN crashed their server.
tintin 14y ago
Since the site is down, another link: http://naturalsociety.com/5-million-farmers-sue-monsanto-for-7-billion/ http://naturalsociety.com/5-million-farmers-sue-monsanto-for...
s4ndb 14y ago
5 - million - farmers. I live in Belgium. In Belgium that would mean almost all working people - in all sectors - coming together for a lawsuit targeted at one single company. I'm baffled by the size of this. Or should I not?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- cdcox 14y ago
  As to your first argument, I don't think it's quite the same. This is like saying that when I buy a song I can freely resell it. Farmers aren't buying the crops and using it for personal use and giving it to friends for personal use. They are buying it and selling it on the open market. If I personally went and bought Monsanto seed and used it for my own plants the I ate/gave away and gave it to friends who all used it for personal use, Monsanto would be hard pressed to stop me/they probably wouldn't bother.
  - nwenzel 14y ago
    Monsanto's lawsuits against farmers are aimed at farmers that did not buy Monsanto seed. Monsanto says that because their seed and their plants are growing on a farmer's land, that farmer must have stolen the seed and is benefiting from stolen property. So they want a cut of the gain from the stolen property. The farmers say that pollen goes where the wind blows it and plants and their DNA spread naturally. The farmers say that they did not intend to grow a Monsanto product but because the Monsanto products grow in greater densities and are more robust than naturally growing soy and other crops, the Monsanto products crowd out the farmer's naturally growing products.
vollmarj 14y ago
This article is wildly emotional and certainly doesn't reflect the situation here in the US. Sure Monsanto and the other seed companies have been driving up the prices of seed. Farmers of course don't like that, but farmers do like the higher yields they get by using those GMO seeds. There are lots of things Monsanto does that might seem "evil", but this article is just ridiculous. Please don't use it as a basis to form your own opinions. You will just sound silly.
jcgillespie 14y ago
I don't understand why Monsanto is vilified for enforcing the licensing agreements that farmers willingly enter into when they buy the seed? When you buy the seed, they tell you straight up that you can't replant. And I'm not a farmer (grew up in farming community), but I don't think this is unique to GMO crops either. I believe the same thing happens for "conventional" hybrid crops from breeding.
Retreads 14y ago
Really? We're talking about an article that claims Monsanto is, "responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes?" In the very first sentence! Sorry, I don't care how relevant or accurate the other information is, but it's not valid after that. Monsanto may or may not be evil, and the farmers may or may not be good, but you certainly can't (shouldn't) form any opinion based on this junk.
kushagrawal 14y ago
They tried to patent neem :|
kevinpet 14y ago
This isn't journalism, it's a piece of agitprop. I'm not just saying this because I think their claims are bullshit, but because the article quotes the lawyer for the farmers, but does not quote a Monsanto spokesman or contain the usual "could not be reached for comment". Anyone writing an article who thinks they need to only talk to one of the parties in a lawsuit isn't practicing journalism. I'd rather not see this on HN. Maybe the topic is appropriate (patents), but the article doesn't give any information about that aspect of things.
deepGem 14y ago
One of the farmers around Portland had complained that Monsanto had dispersed a few GM seeds in his farm and later sued him claiming royalties. Of course, he couldn't prove that Monsanto deliberately polluted his field with their seeds and lost the case. If there's a company that I'd like to see burned to the ground, it's Monsanto. Fucking dictators.
firefox 14y ago
Monsanto needs to stop killing people and farms, it's about time that these farmers get their fair share of the injustice they've been put through by Monsanto. Too bad some are already out of business and long gone.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto (which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented). This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which is very much up in the air. The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or companies, to patent genetic sequences?" On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the claim they invest billions of dollars in creating 'products' that would not occur naturally in a reasonable amount of time, and having made that investment they deserve the limited monopoly granted by the patent system. We also have testing companies who have invested billions in diagnostic tests to identify diseases which are tied to certain genes and they too feel it is right and proper to give them protection so that they might re-coup those costs. In both their cases their argument is that it is for the greater good of the society that these temporary monopolies are granted, to encourage the investment needed to come up with these inventions which will permanently be a benefit going forward. We also have groups of people who are arguing that this is an abuse of the patent monopoly because the processes are not 'man made' they are simply natural processes that have been tuned by man to create a desired result. Generally folks recognize the benefit, but they don't wish to pay the fees. Consistently, the courts have sided with the folks who did the investment because, as the Canadian supreme court pointed out, the people see the benefit too so the argument that its good for society is a well supported. The monkey wrench of course is the question of innovation flexibility. In both the patent and copyright systems there is an implied flexibility rule, which is that if "you" the non-inventor/creator don't like it, you are free to create your own version with your own resources. So if you don't like the patent on the automobile you are free to construct your own vehicle that has the same function of transportation, but doesn't infringe on the claims. This breaks down when their is not flexibility and that was very clearly elucidated by Judge Alsup in the Oracle vs Google case where he held that the APIs, which were constrained to be written in a specific way (no flexibility), could not be copyrighted, because doing so was contrary to copyright law, where he wrote "copyright law does not confer ownership over any and all ways to implement a function or specification." And there is a similar argument to be made against genetic patents. One cannot simply create 'another' way to make plants resistant to a particular herbicide, because that particular herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability without infringing the patent. I expect it is this questions, "What are the considerations of the economic good or harm in locking out others from using a particular 'law of nature or natural process'?" Clearly there is an economic good in being able to farm efficiently, there is a harm in that even if you were a grade a geneticist you couldn't get around using the same genes Monsanto did so there is no avenue to compete. There are only alternatives, like weeding the old fashioned way. If you're wondering, farmers have one of the strongest voices in our government. This is because there are a lot of states that have farmers in them (so there are a lot of representatives from farm districts). They have literally changed the course of rivers to take water from urban users and water their fields, they have been paid not to plant crops, their crop prices have been subsidized to insure they make a living, and their excess product has been bought up with the tax payer's money and distributed for free. So it isn't like Monsanto is the gorilla here. I don't think the original article added a lot to the conversation sadly. I would love to see additional analysis and alternatives being discussed.
rbanffy 14y ago
Shouldn't Monsanto collect royalties from the plants themselves, which are the ones doing the copyright infringement when they pass their genes along to their offspring?
Tooluka 14y ago
I strongly suggest reading "Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi - I think it pretty accurately describes our near future.
mcarvin 14y ago
I'm going to take Monsanto's side here. The farmers are upset because they are being charged royalties over use of renewal seeds produced from the original 'store bought' seeds. The argument is over whether the purchase of seeds implies the farmer is financing the 'use' (like a car lease) or the 'ownership' of the seed (like a car purchase). Monsanto will argue that as the seed's utility is not entirely consumed by it's use (planting) that the most suitable pricing model is to finance the 'use' of the seed, not its ownership. Ergo royalties. They have an enormously strong point to make here - which is that if ownership were implied by purchase the price would be much higher (as they would need to factor in both the value that future generations of seed provides and cannibalization of future seed demand from renewals). Which is why the outcome of this case is somewhat moot. If Monsanto is prevented from charging a royalty because of some technicality they would simply charge a much higher upfront price, which they would then allow you to finance (and the farmer will end up being economically indifferent to whether it is called a royalty or not).
nwenzel 14y ago
Does hating on Monsanto mean you can jump directly to Monsanto as the cause of the farmer suicides? Does a farmer suicide every 30 minutes sound a little high to anyone else? That would be 48 / day or over 17k / year. As for the lawsuit, Monsanto sues a farmer because a farmer's land contains some of Monsanto's product. Fine, their product is essentially DNA, but they're allowed to call it their product. Fighting the patent is a losing fight. Right or wrong, it's a battle that won't be won until Kucinich is in the White House. I've wondered why farmers don't file a counter-claim of trespassing since Monsanto allowed or caused their agents (both the patented DNA and whomever discovered the Monsanto plant) to enter a farmer's property. Additionally, it seems like there would be a case for destruction of property since the genetically modified seeds and plants crowd out the farmer's seeds and plants. Lastly, if the farmers really wanted to hit Monsanto with some irony, they should sue to have Monsanto pay for the removal of the modified seeds and plants. The farmer would have to argue that it is Monsanto's responsibility to prevent the outward spread of their crop. I'm sure the right judge could be found who would draw the comparison to breaking and entering someone's home. But I'm reminded of a couple simple facts. You don't have to be right to sue someone. You don't have to be in the wrong to get sued. Win or loose, it's not cheap to go to court.
hastur 14y ago
B R A V O !!!
vtail 14y ago
What I don't understand is why these farmers wouldn't switch back to using old crops/seeds if Monsanto is so prohibitively expensive and using old plants is more economical in long term?
- ivarv 14y ago
  Monsanto has highly dubious business practices and a history of very aggressively protecting their intellectual property. For a picture of what's at stake and what has transpired read up on the story of Percy Schmeiser - a farmer who tried to stand up to Monsanto's bullying tactics. There are many articles on his story, but I found http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml to be particularly informative)
kondro 14y ago
And the real winners? The lawyers. Can you imagine making a 40%+ success fee from a $7.7B class action suit?
DigitalSea 14y ago
I'm not going to enter the Monsanto sues innocent farmers debate like everyone else here, but those who are educated in the subject have known for a very long time that Monsanto are quite protective of their seed patents. People only know of a handful of cases where Monsanto sued, in reality they sued a lot of farmers in the 90's, not just the few high-profile cases people have heard of, most settle and don't fight. We're talking about a company who basically got where they are today by manufacturing chemical laden plastics, acids and more knowingly Agent Orange which was used in the Vietnam war as a chemical weapon and the artificial sweetener aspartame under the brand name Nutrasweet. I can only think of one good thing Monsanto have done for the public: they were the first company to start mass manufacturing light emitting diodes in the 70s which are now used in everything. But if it weren't Monsanto, someone else would've eventually done the same thing anyway. I hope these farmers succeed. You shouldn't be able to own a patent on mother nature just because you modified a few cells. What's next: parents having to pay royalty fee's for children born via IVF? When nanotechnology starts being commonly used in vaccinations and medicines are we going to have to pay a licencing fee to keep the vaccine/medicine working? What happens if and when human cloning takes place, is that clone the property of the creator and licensed out to the original the person was cloned from?
windexh8er 14y ago
This is definitely an interesting thread, but there seems to be too much focus on Runyon as the bad actor in this case. While I can't say I agree with what Monsanto is doing (the suing and the GM component) I don't think the circumstance is reasonably accounted for... Using Runyon as an example - even if evidence shows that he took advantage of the situation he was inadvertently involved. The root cause was not of his initiation. Ultimately, in my eyes, it should be the responsibility of Monsanto and it's customers to enforce containment. If that's not possible, then they have a flawed product. Monsanto is well aware of the risk involved in IP within a seed. It's main objective in it's lifecycle is to self-sustain, so unless they can turn that off without a doubt they have to accept the risk. What I mean: If Monsanto and it's customers can't contain the product they buy and use then there should be no implications for anyone around them to take on that responsibility. Example (and I know these haven't been going well, so my stab): BP comes knocking on Runyon's neighbor's door. They want to drill in his (the neighbor's) fields, but there is high risk that they may contaminate a shared water table Runyon and the neighbor's land is sitting on. The neighbor decides to go forth - and the inevitable happens. Now - who's fault is it? Runyon's - for being where he is and not instigating (at all) the actions that the neighbor chose to execute? In an argument where the outcome is bad - it's easy to identify the bad actor. In an argument where the outcome is indirectly good there is no incentive for Runyon to sue his neighbor for giving him something that normally should be paid for. Solution?: Monsanto must place all risk of seed carryover on to it's customers. It is not the anonymous farmers responsibility to fight Monsanto when their competition (the neighbor) has instigated the problem. BUT... Monsanto would never sue their own customers because that is counter-productive; nobody would buy seed from them. I agree with suing Monsanto. But on the basis that Monsanto and it's customers are operating under a negligent business model which enables them to sue innocent farmers. It almost seems to me that Monsanto is under the assumption that emminent domain applies to it's intellectual property - of which I do not agree. If the BP spill would have leaked $20 bills instead of oil - you really think there would have been any lawsuits or complaints? Bottom line: if Runyon didn't intentionally set out to steal Monsanto seeds then he has no responsibility to Monsanto. If you argue that he took advantage of the situation I would argue that is his right and luck. Now if he turns around and directly competes with Monsanto - there may be a case. Otherwise in the land of my personal morals I don't believe Runyon can be held accountable. Carpe diem. EDIT: Formatting. And thought... If Monsanto has the genetic research capability to create a product that is resistant to something like RoundUp - why can't it modify the lifecycle of the plant to only grow if some simple additive is sprayed on the newly planted field to "activate" it? Something along the lines of a license key for seeds. That way - if Runyon was caught with plants in an entire field it would showcase theft. It's easier for Monsanto to sue innocent bystanders than put money into R&D of a protection mechanism I would guess... And, yes, I've oversimplified genetic engineering, but again - it's a flawed product if you can't protect it.

From the article, "The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges."

dangoldin 14y ago

If anyone's seen "Food, Inc" they also mention the abusive practices of Monsanto of suing anyone that poses a threat to their business model. I don't know much about the space but there may be some interesting patent implications from the lawsuit.

conanite 14y ago

Monsanto: the MAFIAA and patent trolls of agriculture. May the farmers win. And may your amaranth grow and prosper. [0] [0] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resistant_superweeds.php http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resis...

wheaties 14y ago

Good for them. I've never met a company that could sue you because a honey bee or some other naturally event that has been occurring for hundreds of years happened. To that I'm referring to Monsato's practice of suing farmers who haven't used their seed variety having their fields cross pollinated with another farmer's fields who is using Monato's seed products. Really?! Ugh.

skosuri 14y ago
No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.
- protomyth 14y ago
  You might want to read the actual findings, they put patent law above rights of property holder. Not knowing might have mitigated the damages, but it would have not stopped the lawsuit.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    Of course they did, the whole point of patent law is that it restricts what you can do with your own property. I think it would be nice if ignorance was an excuse in patent cases, but the fact that it isn't is a big part of why our current patent system is so toxic in general, especially in software.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      I think the idea that someone can pollute your property and then charge you for it is a grievous violation of property rights. It is not the patent I object to, it is the idea that a polluter can "corrupt" my crop and then charge me for it.
      - Symmetry 14y ago
        I also think the idea that you can sue someone just for seeds that blew in is absurd. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened. In each case where someone was sued by Monsanto they were alleged to have deliberately tried to save only the GM seeds. And of course they denied it and said that it wasn't deliberate, but what they were charged with was deliberate patent violation.
        protomyth 14y ago
        http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... has some cases of their lawsuit fun
        14y ago

stevoski 14y ago

This article makes some rather terrible claims. I've never heard of readersupportednews.org before. Are there similar articles in well-known, respectable publications? (Note: I'm not claiming the site is disreputable, I've just never heard of the site and want to read more on sites (on in publications) I know.)

AgentConundrum 14y ago
Here's a link from RT.com (Russia Today): https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/ https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/ I have no idea if they're trustworthy either, but Wikipedia[1] had this to say about them: > RT is the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after BBC News and the first most-watched news channel worldwide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29
- maratd 14y ago
  RT is most certainly not the most-watched news channel worldwide. That doesn't even make any sense. RT is, however, a propaganda tool of Putin and friends. I most certainly wouldn't trust their numbers or anything else they publish for that matter.
- omonra 14y ago
  Please don't quote anything from RT - it's as useful as quoting Gobbles. While there is a chance it could be true, the association itself makes anything quoted extremely suspect.
  - AgentConundrum 14y ago
    Good to know. I had no idea what it was, but it looked more legit than the OP. Wikipedia seemed to back up the idea that it was a proper source, so I linked it.
    - omonra 14y ago

t4nkd 14y ago

Tried to read this article, hit some kind of NPR style donation paywall... 0/10, wouldn't click.

ElliotH 14y ago
Nice easy skip button in the top corner.
emilis_info 14y ago
Or use NoScript: http://noscript.net/ http://noscript.net/
SIDD 14y ago
There is a timeout on this "paywall", just wait for 15 seconds

latch 14y ago

This may be naive, but why isn't the market protecting farmers? Are subsidies involved? Why don't they just use normal seeds or other seeds? Weren't these limitations known ahead of time? Why did the farmers make a deal with the devil? Why can't they switch back?

va_coder 14y ago
It's my understanding Monsanto isn't a company that relies on free markets. They use lawyers heavily. If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non customer's farm and the non customer doesn't actively try to remove the Monsanto seeds, they sue. They are like the seed mafia.
- Tichy 14y ago
  And do they win such claims? Seems to me the farmer whose field was polluted should be able sue for damages instead?
  - knieveltech 14y ago
    Your average farmer doesn't have the resources required to field a lawsuit against a multi-national company.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Then that seems to be a flaw in the law system. Still, even if they don't start it, why would the company win frivolous claims?
      - knieveltech 14y ago
        Surely you don't think that frivolous claims are never won?
        Tichy 14y ago

dizidoro 14y ago

why is this on HN? for more important and interesting the story is, its not really what i want to read on HN. I already have other sources for that.

crikli 14y ago

The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other than my iPad as I know I need to provide more than this here on HN. :)

maxerickson 14y ago
The lawsuit is in Brazil. The claims about people killing themselves are from India. So U.S. corn prices probably don't quite factor in. Also, if you are importing diesel and fertilizer, you aren't quite self sustaining (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I like cheap and available food, but the popular idea of sustainability is about accounting for and balancing flows of energy, not keeping land productive).
- sp332 14y ago
  That's sustainable energy sources. Sustainable farming is different.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    My reading was that the comment meant "We're still here", not "We are among the best in the world at minimizing inputs".
    - crikli 14y ago
      I meant both. See my response above but minimizing inputs is the core motivation of most of our family's technology and infrastructure investments. GPS integration alone has allowed us to use the minimal amount of fertilizer as we're able to use historical data to know which parts of the field need which amounts of what.
  - glesica 14y ago

Create 14y ago

"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement." Dow provided the chemicals that Washington used from 1961 onward to destroy crops and forests in South Vietnam, drenching the country with Agent Orange. These poisons contain dioxin, one of the most lethal carcinogens known, affecting millions of Vietnamese and many U.S. soldiers. To this day in Vietnam, aborted fetuses and deformed infants are very likely the effects of these crimes - though, in light of Washington's refusal to investigate, we have only the studies of Vietnamese scientists and independent analysts. Joining the Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of the horrendous 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of history's worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands and injured more than half a million. Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the disaster, was taken over by Dow, for whom the matter is of no slight concern. In February, Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation for the victims and prosecution of those responsible." America's Rank Hypocrisy, By Noam Chomsky, AlterNet 05 June 12

peterwwillis 14y ago
So Vietnam is opposed to a company sponsoring the Olympics because they made a product that the USA used to deform and kill their people. How does that make sense? Shouldn't they be angry at the country that actually dumped the chemicals on them? If somebody gets a gun and shoots you, you sue the guy who shot you, not the company that made the bullets. (Well, unless you just want more money, which in our litigious society might actually work for you...)
- Roboprog 14y ago
  It's possible they are pissed at both. Just sayin'.
- Retric 14y ago

daaif 14y ago

http://readersupportednews.org http://readersupportednews.org is down

sigzero 14y ago

About freaking time! Monsanto is EVIL.

joseflavio 14y ago

Am I the only one getting this error: "Database Error: Unable to connect to the database:Could not connect to MySQL" ? I think the traffic from HN crashed their server.

tintin 14y ago

Since the site is down, another link: http://naturalsociety.com/5-million-farmers-sue-monsanto-for-7-billion/ http://naturalsociety.com/5-million-farmers-sue-monsanto-for...

s4ndb 14y ago

5 - million - farmers. I live in Belgium. In Belgium that would mean almost all working people - in all sectors - coming together for a lawsuit targeted at one single company. I'm baffled by the size of this. Or should I not?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cdcox 14y ago
As to your first argument, I don't think it's quite the same. This is like saying that when I buy a song I can freely resell it. Farmers aren't buying the crops and using it for personal use and giving it to friends for personal use. They are buying it and selling it on the open market. If I personally went and bought Monsanto seed and used it for my own plants the I ate/gave away and gave it to friends who all used it for personal use, Monsanto would be hard pressed to stop me/they probably wouldn't bother.
- nwenzel 14y ago
  Monsanto's lawsuits against farmers are aimed at farmers that did not buy Monsanto seed. Monsanto says that because their seed and their plants are growing on a farmer's land, that farmer must have stolen the seed and is benefiting from stolen property. So they want a cut of the gain from the stolen property. The farmers say that pollen goes where the wind blows it and plants and their DNA spread naturally. The farmers say that they did not intend to grow a Monsanto product but because the Monsanto products grow in greater densities and are more robust than naturally growing soy and other crops, the Monsanto products crowd out the farmer's naturally growing products.

vollmarj 14y ago

This article is wildly emotional and certainly doesn't reflect the situation here in the US. Sure Monsanto and the other seed companies have been driving up the prices of seed. Farmers of course don't like that, but farmers do like the higher yields they get by using those GMO seeds. There are lots of things Monsanto does that might seem "evil", but this article is just ridiculous. Please don't use it as a basis to form your own opinions. You will just sound silly.

jcgillespie 14y ago

I don't understand why Monsanto is vilified for enforcing the licensing agreements that farmers willingly enter into when they buy the seed? When you buy the seed, they tell you straight up that you can't replant. And I'm not a farmer (grew up in farming community), but I don't think this is unique to GMO crops either. I believe the same thing happens for "conventional" hybrid crops from breeding.

Retreads 14y ago

Really? We're talking about an article that claims Monsanto is, "responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes?" In the very first sentence! Sorry, I don't care how relevant or accurate the other information is, but it's not valid after that. Monsanto may or may not be evil, and the farmers may or may not be good, but you certainly can't (shouldn't) form any opinion based on this junk.

kushagrawal 14y ago

They tried to patent neem :|

kevinpet 14y ago

This isn't journalism, it's a piece of agitprop. I'm not just saying this because I think their claims are bullshit, but because the article quotes the lawyer for the farmers, but does not quote a Monsanto spokesman or contain the usual "could not be reached for comment". Anyone writing an article who thinks they need to only talk to one of the parties in a lawsuit isn't practicing journalism. I'd rather not see this on HN. Maybe the topic is appropriate (patents), but the article doesn't give any information about that aspect of things.

deepGem 14y ago

One of the farmers around Portland had complained that Monsanto had dispersed a few GM seeds in his farm and later sued him claiming royalties. Of course, he couldn't prove that Monsanto deliberately polluted his field with their seeds and lost the case. If there's a company that I'd like to see burned to the ground, it's Monsanto. Fucking dictators.

firefox 14y ago

Monsanto needs to stop killing people and farms, it's about time that these farmers get their fair share of the injustice they've been put through by Monsanto. Too bad some are already out of business and long gone.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto (which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented). This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which is very much up in the air. The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or companies, to patent genetic sequences?" On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the claim they invest billions of dollars in creating 'products' that would not occur naturally in a reasonable amount of time, and having made that investment they deserve the limited monopoly granted by the patent system. We also have testing companies who have invested billions in diagnostic tests to identify diseases which are tied to certain genes and they too feel it is right and proper to give them protection so that they might re-coup those costs. In both their cases their argument is that it is for the greater good of the society that these temporary monopolies are granted, to encourage the investment needed to come up with these inventions which will permanently be a benefit going forward. We also have groups of people who are arguing that this is an abuse of the patent monopoly because the processes are not 'man made' they are simply natural processes that have been tuned by man to create a desired result. Generally folks recognize the benefit, but they don't wish to pay the fees. Consistently, the courts have sided with the folks who did the investment because, as the Canadian supreme court pointed out, the people see the benefit too so the argument that its good for society is a well supported. The monkey wrench of course is the question of innovation flexibility. In both the patent and copyright systems there is an implied flexibility rule, which is that if "you" the non-inventor/creator don't like it, you are free to create your own version with your own resources. So if you don't like the patent on the automobile you are free to construct your own vehicle that has the same function of transportation, but doesn't infringe on the claims. This breaks down when their is not flexibility and that was very clearly elucidated by Judge Alsup in the Oracle vs Google case where he held that the APIs, which were constrained to be written in a specific way (no flexibility), could not be copyrighted, because doing so was contrary to copyright law, where he wrote "copyright law does not confer ownership over any and all ways to implement a function or specification." And there is a similar argument to be made against genetic patents. One cannot simply create 'another' way to make plants resistant to a particular herbicide, because that particular herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability without infringing the patent. I expect it is this questions, "What are the considerations of the economic good or harm in locking out others from using a particular 'law of nature or natural process'?" Clearly there is an economic good in being able to farm efficiently, there is a harm in that even if you were a grade a geneticist you couldn't get around using the same genes Monsanto did so there is no avenue to compete. There are only alternatives, like weeding the old fashioned way. If you're wondering, farmers have one of the strongest voices in our government. This is because there are a lot of states that have farmers in them (so there are a lot of representatives from farm districts). They have literally changed the course of rivers to take water from urban users and water their fields, they have been paid not to plant crops, their crop prices have been subsidized to insure they make a living, and their excess product has been bought up with the tax payer's money and distributed for free. So it isn't like Monsanto is the gorilla here. I don't think the original article added a lot to the conversation sadly. I would love to see additional analysis and alternatives being discussed.

rbanffy 14y ago

Shouldn't Monsanto collect royalties from the plants themselves, which are the ones doing the copyright infringement when they pass their genes along to their offspring?

Tooluka 14y ago

I strongly suggest reading "Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi - I think it pretty accurately describes our near future.

mcarvin 14y ago

I'm going to take Monsanto's side here. The farmers are upset because they are being charged royalties over use of renewal seeds produced from the original 'store bought' seeds. The argument is over whether the purchase of seeds implies the farmer is financing the 'use' (like a car lease) or the 'ownership' of the seed (like a car purchase). Monsanto will argue that as the seed's utility is not entirely consumed by it's use (planting) that the most suitable pricing model is to finance the 'use' of the seed, not its ownership. Ergo royalties. They have an enormously strong point to make here - which is that if ownership were implied by purchase the price would be much higher (as they would need to factor in both the value that future generations of seed provides and cannibalization of future seed demand from renewals). Which is why the outcome of this case is somewhat moot. If Monsanto is prevented from charging a royalty because of some technicality they would simply charge a much higher upfront price, which they would then allow you to finance (and the farmer will end up being economically indifferent to whether it is called a royalty or not).

nwenzel 14y ago

Does hating on Monsanto mean you can jump directly to Monsanto as the cause of the farmer suicides? Does a farmer suicide every 30 minutes sound a little high to anyone else? That would be 48 / day or over 17k / year. As for the lawsuit, Monsanto sues a farmer because a farmer's land contains some of Monsanto's product. Fine, their product is essentially DNA, but they're allowed to call it their product. Fighting the patent is a losing fight. Right or wrong, it's a battle that won't be won until Kucinich is in the White House. I've wondered why farmers don't file a counter-claim of trespassing since Monsanto allowed or caused their agents (both the patented DNA and whomever discovered the Monsanto plant) to enter a farmer's property. Additionally, it seems like there would be a case for destruction of property since the genetically modified seeds and plants crowd out the farmer's seeds and plants. Lastly, if the farmers really wanted to hit Monsanto with some irony, they should sue to have Monsanto pay for the removal of the modified seeds and plants. The farmer would have to argue that it is Monsanto's responsibility to prevent the outward spread of their crop. I'm sure the right judge could be found who would draw the comparison to breaking and entering someone's home. But I'm reminded of a couple simple facts. You don't have to be right to sue someone. You don't have to be in the wrong to get sued. Win or loose, it's not cheap to go to court.

hastur 14y ago

B R A V O !!!

vtail 14y ago

What I don't understand is why these farmers wouldn't switch back to using old crops/seeds if Monsanto is so prohibitively expensive and using old plants is more economical in long term?

ivarv 14y ago
Monsanto has highly dubious business practices and a history of very aggressively protecting their intellectual property. For a picture of what's at stake and what has transpired read up on the story of Percy Schmeiser - a farmer who tried to stand up to Monsanto's bullying tactics. There are many articles on his story, but I found http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml to be particularly informative)

kondro 14y ago

And the real winners? The lawyers. Can you imagine making a 40%+ success fee from a $7.7B class action suit?

DigitalSea 14y ago

I'm not going to enter the Monsanto sues innocent farmers debate like everyone else here, but those who are educated in the subject have known for a very long time that Monsanto are quite protective of their seed patents. People only know of a handful of cases where Monsanto sued, in reality they sued a lot of farmers in the 90's, not just the few high-profile cases people have heard of, most settle and don't fight. We're talking about a company who basically got where they are today by manufacturing chemical laden plastics, acids and more knowingly Agent Orange which was used in the Vietnam war as a chemical weapon and the artificial sweetener aspartame under the brand name Nutrasweet. I can only think of one good thing Monsanto have done for the public: they were the first company to start mass manufacturing light emitting diodes in the 70s which are now used in everything. But if it weren't Monsanto, someone else would've eventually done the same thing anyway. I hope these farmers succeed. You shouldn't be able to own a patent on mother nature just because you modified a few cells. What's next: parents having to pay royalty fee's for children born via IVF? When nanotechnology starts being commonly used in vaccinations and medicines are we going to have to pay a licencing fee to keep the vaccine/medicine working? What happens if and when human cloning takes place, is that clone the property of the creator and licensed out to the original the person was cloned from?

windexh8er 14y ago

This is definitely an interesting thread, but there seems to be too much focus on Runyon as the bad actor in this case. While I can't say I agree with what Monsanto is doing (the suing and the GM component) I don't think the circumstance is reasonably accounted for... Using Runyon as an example - even if evidence shows that he took advantage of the situation he was inadvertently involved. The root cause was not of his initiation. Ultimately, in my eyes, it should be the responsibility of Monsanto and it's customers to enforce containment. If that's not possible, then they have a flawed product. Monsanto is well aware of the risk involved in IP within a seed. It's main objective in it's lifecycle is to self-sustain, so unless they can turn that off without a doubt they have to accept the risk. What I mean: If Monsanto and it's customers can't contain the product they buy and use then there should be no implications for anyone around them to take on that responsibility. Example (and I know these haven't been going well, so my stab): BP comes knocking on Runyon's neighbor's door. They want to drill in his (the neighbor's) fields, but there is high risk that they may contaminate a shared water table Runyon and the neighbor's land is sitting on. The neighbor decides to go forth - and the inevitable happens. Now - who's fault is it? Runyon's - for being where he is and not instigating (at all) the actions that the neighbor chose to execute? In an argument where the outcome is bad - it's easy to identify the bad actor. In an argument where the outcome is indirectly good there is no incentive for Runyon to sue his neighbor for giving him something that normally should be paid for. Solution?: Monsanto must place all risk of seed carryover on to it's customers. It is not the anonymous farmers responsibility to fight Monsanto when their competition (the neighbor) has instigated the problem. BUT... Monsanto would never sue their own customers because that is counter-productive; nobody would buy seed from them. I agree with suing Monsanto. But on the basis that Monsanto and it's customers are operating under a negligent business model which enables them to sue innocent farmers. It almost seems to me that Monsanto is under the assumption that emminent domain applies to it's intellectual property - of which I do not agree. If the BP spill would have leaked $20 bills instead of oil - you really think there would have been any lawsuits or complaints? Bottom line: if Runyon didn't intentionally set out to steal Monsanto seeds then he has no responsibility to Monsanto. If you argue that he took advantage of the situation I would argue that is his right and luck. Now if he turns around and directly competes with Monsanto - there may be a case. Otherwise in the land of my personal morals I don't believe Runyon can be held accountable. Carpe diem. EDIT: Formatting. And thought... If Monsanto has the genetic research capability to create a product that is resistant to something like RoundUp - why can't it modify the lifecycle of the plant to only grow if some simple additive is sprayed on the newly planted field to "activate" it? Something along the lines of a license key for seeds. That way - if Runyon was caught with plants in an entire field it would showcase theft. It's easier for Monsanto to sue innocent bystanders than put money into R&D of a protection mechanism I would guess... And, yes, I've oversimplified genetic engineering, but again - it's a flawed product if you can't protect it.