8 ms·
Monsanto: All Your Seeds Are Belong to Us
- mschuster91 14y agoThat nature can be patented at all is a gross violation of human rights. Nature and biology should not be restricted by anything. Ever.
- jaramburu 14y agoIt is so profitable to be evil
- Svip 14y agoMakes you wonder why Monsanto aren't considered the Worst Company in the United States. For my money, I find BP and oil companies as well as the banks incompetent but with a bit of malice. Monsanto, on the other hand, are pure evil.
- chrisvineup 14y agoI couldn't agree more.
- penny500 14y agoHelping farmers increase their yield, which makes food cheaper for the poor, is "pure evil"?
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoMonsanto created Agent Orange and DDT, claiming at the time that both were perfectly safe for humans. Now we know better. http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml The results for GMOs is mixed but is not looking good for Monsanto at the moment. We don't need to fix the food system, it wasn't broken to begin with.
- webreac 14y agoyou are dis-informed.
- smutticus 14y ago1) The problem with poor people not having enough to eat is unrelated to underproduction of food. It's a much more complex problem then that. 2) Ask the thousands of Indian farmers who committed suicide because their crops failed how helpful Monsanto was. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc... "When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year. But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own. As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death." 3) Monsant's entire argument rests on taking farmers' rights away. From TFA: "Monsanto contends that the patent violation is Bowman's fault because he took the grains and used them to create new versions of Monsanto's patented soybeans that Monsanto, the patent holder, hadn't sold him." Monsanto wants planting a seed to be patent violation. They want to stop you buying something and putting it into the ground. Fuck Monsanto and everything that they stand for.
- Blahah 14y agoPlease don't perpetuate the Indian Farmer Suicides fallacy. It's a real and tragic phenomenon but it is not about GM seeds or Monsanto, starting long before they entered India. There's a very good review by IFPRI here: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/bt-cotton-and-farmer-suicides-india http://www.ifpri.org/publication/bt-cotton-and-farmer-suicid....
- penny500 14y agoThis is completely misinformed. a) False. "However, a 2008 report by the International Food Policy Research Institute showed that there was no evidence for an increased suicide rate following the 2002 introduction of Bt cotton, but instead that the rate had been consistent since 1997." b) If a farmer buys seeds with the condition that they not replant those seeds, what happens if they do replant? Aren't they violating the terms of their purchase? It's like me buying a software license for 1-year, and not renewing but continuing to use the software beyond the expiration. c) If someone knowingly uses a patented product without paying the patent holder, you're saying that they're not liable? "Fuck Monsanto and everything that they stand for." Edgy.
- stagas 14y agoThe argument "making food cheaper for the poor" doesn't give you a pass messing with nature and people's health. I can make food cheaper by killing half of the population since there's going to be more left for the rest of us! Does this justify my action? Get real, food has grown and can grow naturally and there are natural ways to have healthy crops that don't need dangerous pesticides. Nature has been working in a balance since ever and they are messing with it. It's MY nature they are messing with. All they're doing is maximizing profits at the expense of everything and everybody else.
- michaelbuddy 14y agono kidding. So glad my food is cheaper. Too bad this cancer isn't.
- penny500 14y agoGet real. People can still grow food naturally as they always have. They can't use patented technology that took billions to develop and use it for free without approval of the patent holder.
- stagas 14y agoReally? Ask for approval before planting a seed in the ground? You call that technology? Technology doesn't lock-in, it unlocks potential. Maybe ask for a commission then for the oxygen their GM plants produce. After all, it took billions to develop and I am breathing free air that originates from their patented plants.
- penny500 14y agoYes, really. It's a patented seed. It's a "special" seed. It needed billions of dollars in scientific research to engineer. It's not your seed. You're not free to use it because you didn't develop it and you didn't purchase a license to use it. You're free to use other seeds however, if you have the rights to it.
- randomdata 14y ago
- belorn 14y agoIts hard to beat the irony where a game development company, A company with the business model of producing entertainment, is voted as the Worst Company in the United States.
- Bryan22 14y ago2 pop ups in 3 seconds. Monsanto is evil everyone gets it. Not to mention the recent political scandal... but I'm not reading the article. Pop-ups are equally evil.
- milfot 14y agoIf the pop-ups infect your computer and write spurious code into all your saved work thereby taking ownership of them and then sue your sorry arse into the ground for theft.. then yes, pop-ups are equally evil.
- Bryan22 14y agoIf pop ups increased the amount of data my hard drive could store they'd be equally good... Monsanto is an evil corporation but GMOs are pretty much the only reason there's going to be enough food for "your sorry arse" to eat in 10 years. The farmers have to pay for the seeds, yes, but their yield is much higher than without them. Sounds like the guy knew what he was doing when he bought the second hand seeds. Why don't you spend billions of dollars on a piece of software, sell it to me cheap and allow me to sell knock offs for 1/2 your asking price; lets see how you feel about it then...
- milfot 14y agoFirst, my comment was facetiously poking fun at the idea of some benign first-world annoyance being evil.. lighten up eh? Second, the argument about GMO (or any other high-tech way to increase farming yields) being a 'solution' to food supply shortages is thrown around a lot without any evidence.. nor, as far as I can see, any actual basis in fact. The drive to increase yields is a drive to increase profit / hectare, which has only resulted in actually driving other farmers out of the business which reduces food production stability, and ultimately overall yield. In every objective measure, this process also produces inferior product. Monsanto has been profiting from the large-scale destruction of many decades of careful seed adaptation in regional areas. They have driven seed sellers and savers out of business in order to monopolise the markets. They sue / threaten / cajole farmers into using their product or effectively run them out of business. Third, if I spent billions creating a piece of software whose sole purpose was to replicate its source code and upload it randomly to surrounding networks (along with some by-product) and did this by only changing a couple of lines in an existing piece of open source code, so that no one could really tell the difference... and got pissed that people were using that code. Well, I would just be a bit of a dick now, wouldn't I. Spending more money on something does not give you any more rights, just more risk.
- tellarin 14y agoAt least the Supreme Court is hearing the case. Hope they take the right decision here. I can't understand how Monsanto can make these claims with a straight face. The guys didn't license the seeds from them. If much, they could go after whoever sold the seeds to the grain elevator, but that's also quite a stretch. Also, what happens if some other regular seed shipment is "contaminated" by Monsanto seeds in any way? Is a farmer/buyer supposed to have to pay them for not doing DNA analysis in all seeds? WTF?!
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoNot if Clarence Thomas has anything to say about it. Monsanto and the FDA are a revolving door for each other and Clarence used to work for Monsanto.
- Major_Grooves 14y agoMonsanto made the roundup-ready soybeans, which took millions to develop. If the farmer doesn't want to be sued, he could use non-roundup-ready soybeans. Or, presumably, he can wait till the original patent expires, then he can use the roundup-ready soybeans freely. I'm all for calling out unethical companies and IP trolls, but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.
- Locke1689 14y agoThis does seem to be a pretty decent area to provide intellectual property-based incentives for. The fundamental innovation here is intellectual -- it's the engineering of a new genetic code. All of us are familiar with something similar -- engineering of new computer code. It is often granted that computer code provides unique benefits worth protecting. I can certainly see why genetic engineering deserves similar protections. That said, this is a fairly complicated piece of case law and I could definitely see how it could fall through the cracks in naively written legislation.
- markive 14y agoI suggest you watch the documentary Food Inc to see why it isn't as straightforward as that..
- randomdata 14y agoI assume you are referring to the fact that the traits can make their way into non-GMO seeds due to the way nature functions? However, Monsanto has only been able to successfully defend their patents when gross violations have occurred – i.e. the crop has also been sprayed with roundup. Someone who is honestly trying to grow non-RR seed is obviously not going to be doing that. Monsanto has been so successful with this because, for 99% of the farmers out there, these patents have no effect on their business. It wasn't particularly common to grow your own seeds for a variety of reasons, even before the patents came into effect.
- penny500 14y agoI suggest you read actual peer-review scientific journal articles on the matter instead of relying on a documentary you saw on NetFlix.
- mtgx 14y agoAre we really going to enter an era of "seed piracy"? And not because farmers everywhere would intentionally steal Monsanto's seeds, but because the laws would change in such a way that almost everyone else' seeds would be considered "pirated" versions of Monsanto's seeds. Maybe we'll even get some kind of seed DMCA in the future. If Monsanto accuses someone of pirating, the government would just seize those crops. No trial necessary.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Ygg2 14y agoI don't know whether to laugh or cry. Your message seem like its coming from 15 minutes into the future.
- CaptainZapp 14y agoThis is exactly the reason why I strongly oppose GM food. It's not that I'm scared about the consequences (the jury's still out on that). But, do you really want to hand the keys for our nutrition to the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta and their ilk?
- penny500 14y agoWhy not? Their seeds and their competitors' are shown to be perfectly safe by the FDA, and the National Academy of Sciences and American Medical Association vouch for their seeds.
- CaptainZapp 14y agoPlease reread what I wrote. My concerns are not about the safety, but about the patent ability of our food supply by private companies.
- penny500 14y agoYou're free to use non GM seeds (or GM from Monsanto's competitors). What's stopping you and other farmers (many of whom do not use GM)?
- voltagex_ 14y agoUntil they cross-pollinate with a patented GM crop...
- penny500 14y agoName one case in which Monsanto sued a farmer for unintentionally planting cross-pollinated seeds.
- CaptainZapp 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Edit to add: You can argue that this is a he said, she said. Since Mr. Schmeiser did not use Roundup I find his reasoning that he has no interest in the Monsanto seeds rather convincing.
- rorrr 14y agoLooks like we need some open-source seeds.
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoAVAAZ is hosting a petition against Monsanto's attempt to patent food in Europe right now: http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_loc/?cwqgMdb http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_loc/?cwqgMd... If you care about the health of everybody's food and the environment in general please sign it.
- kokey 14y agoPatents on seeds and breeds have been around for many decades before Monsanto came to the party. Farmers tend not to replant seeds for a very long time now, not only to avoid patent disputes but also to ensure consistency of crops. It's only become viable now to DNA test seeds and breeds to protect these patents.
- stagas 14y agoCan we identify the products on the shelves that are of Monsanto origin and have a list posted somewhere so we can boycott them? I don't really feel like ever buying anything originated from that company.
- maceo 14y agoThis app makes it easy to do just that: http://buycott.com/campaign/211/demand-gmo-labeling http://buycott.com/campaign/211/demand-gmo-labeling
- stagas 14y agoThat's a good cause but will take ages before all nations adopt it, if they ever get everyone to agree. I was hoping for something I can start using right away.
- maceo 14y agoYou can use it right away. Download the iPhone app at https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/buycott/id585933440?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/buycott/id585933440?ls=1&..., join that campaign I linked to, and then use it to scan a barcode to find out if an item is owned by Monsanto. By the way, I believe that US and Canada are the only developed nations that don't already require GMO labeling.
- TOGoS 14y ago"It would be near impossible to recoup your investments with that first sale, and so the more likely consequence is that research dollars would be put elsewhere," Great! Fuck Monsanto's investments and their fucking poison.
- Joe-Z 14y agoI don't get this either. Also from the article: "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" If the flaws in their business model are so obvious (i.e. farmers can reuse their product once they bought it), why don't they try to improve their business model instead of threatening farmers with lawsuits and trying to regulate the food industry?
- seanalltogether 14y agoIf monsanto holds the patent on the pesticide, why do they need a patent on the seed as well? Isn't it in the best interest to proliferate the seed as much as possible to maximize the number of farmers who need the pesticide?
- redblacktree 14y agoThey want to have their cake and eat it too.
- randomdata 14y agoPatents expire. Companies need to continue to innovate if they want to stay relevant. The last Roundup-related patent expired, according to Wikipedia, in 2000. Even the Roundup Ready 1 modified seed patent expires next year.
- OGinparadise 14y ago"Monsanto: All Your Seeds Are Belong to Us" Mother Jones: All Articles Written by Us Are Belong to Us I understand the impact on farmers and that Monsanto plays dirty, but this is their invention, you do not have to use their seeds. If you do, however, you must play by their rules. I understand that the lawsuit is different (planted someone else's seeds) but that person also violated his agreement. "They want the farmers to take all the risks associated with farming, yet they want to control how they use those seeds all the way down the distribution chain," So it's an unfair agreement. Don't enter it.
- makomk 14y agoThe point is that you do have to use their seeds. Previously you could get seeds from other sources or even replant your own seeds, but Monsanto have been suing seed cleaning firms and people who buy seeds elsewhere, which means that even if you don't want Roundup Ready seeds you have to buy them from Monsanto.
- LatvjuAvs 14y agoAnd people are happy when you pour more poison on plants and they are fine :D
- cageface 14y agoI live in Vietnam and almost every day I see the heartbreaking consequences of Monsanto's involvement in the dioxin poisoning of this country. As far as I'm concerned this company should be liquidated and the proceeds distributed to the people still suffering every day as a result. Putting the future of agriculture in the hands of a company this immoral is simply insane.