9 ms·

Just to be clear: if you don't like this situation, patent law is the target. Monsanto, like many other companies, are operating within the legal framework the

by Blahah 13y ago

Just to be clear: if you don't like this situation, patent law is the target. Monsanto, like many other companies, are operating within the legal framework the USA provides them. Reduce patent terms and you'll diversify control of the food supply. Second, just to pre-empt, please don't confuse Monsanto with GM crops. Monsanto are a real pain in my ass as a plant scientist because they're nucleating an all-out war on rationality. The original Monsanto, a chemical manufacturer, were hated because of their US government contracts for Agent Orange, and their massive environmental abuses in the 1950s. In the 90s they developed some nice genetic technology. In 2000 that company was bought out by Pharmacia. Then, in possibly the biggest PR fuckup ever, a newly formed company taking only the agricultural IP from the old Monsanto decided to keep the name. The name carries so many associations with the evil things they did in the 50s-70s that it has utterly polluted the public discourse on GM crops. It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his support, but he definitively broke the law.

gress 13y ago
They aren't 'just operating within the law'. They are actively lobbying to strengthen it, and to create legal precedents.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Yup, and that's completely part of the legal framework of the USA. They take advantage just like every other IP-owning company, including basically every tech company in Silicon Valley.
  - biehl 13y ago
    But it is morally completely different. If you only "work with the hand you are dealt", you can claim some innocence if that means you do something slightly bad. If you actively work to expand a harmful framework you deserve rough treatment the other way. Sort of like copyright holders that have actively lobbied to lengthen (retroactively) terms. They have no moral standing against being stripped (retroactively) of their copyrights.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      If the law creates artificial scarcity to enable certain types of enterprise (like technology and media), it is creating an incentive for companies in those industries to exploit the legal situation as much as possible. Not only that, but publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to maximise profit for their shareholders[0]. Together these things mean that a successful company in these industries is one that tries to extend the artificial scarcity of their medium. In other words, it's the law, not the companies, that are to blame. Change the law. 0: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
      - biehl 13y ago
        I think we agree that the law should be changed - the point I'm making is that companies that have lobbied are in no (moral) position to complain if the law is changed harshly in their disfavor.
        Blahah 13y ago
        Well I agree with that :)
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
gergles 13y ago
> It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his support, but he definitively broke the law. I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading, but I (and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law. Someone contaminated his property with Roundup-Ready canola. He chose to take advantage of that, isolate it, and replant it. He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense to me; I think a lot of the outrage comes in discovering that Monsanto's patent is on the actual lifeforms themselves, not on the process for turning a regular seed into a roundup-ready seed.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Just to be clear: glyphosphate pesticides (Roundup) kill normal crops. Roundup-Ready plants resist Roundup. If you treat a normal crop with Roundup, you kill the crop. You would only do that knowing that the crop germinated from patented, Roundup-Ready seeds. You can't do it by accident. That's what Schmeiser did: he was sued by Monsanto not for planting unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds, but for using Roundup on them. It's also worth mentioning that the court did not find credible Schmeiser's claim that his original run of Roundup-Ready seeds were the product of accidental contamination --- upon determining that he was germinating Roundup-Ready plants, Schmeiser applied Roundup to the whole field, and 60% of the field survived. Furthermore, upon learning that he had a field consisting entirely of Roundup-Ready plants, he proceeded preserve and reuse the whole crop for future plantings.
  - dionidium 13y ago
    We've actually discussed this on here before and I still don't understand how you've concluded that he was sued for using Roundup. From Wikipedia [0]: "The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells." And: "Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally" He was sued for using their seeds. It has nothing to do with whether or not he applied Roundup. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
higherpurpose 13y ago
Really? You think people hate Monsanto now because of stuff that happened 50 years ago? Everything bad I've heard about Monsanto has been from the past 5-10 years. Also: 1) I don't think "GM food" per se is bad, however if I had a choice, and knew ahead of time what I'm eating, I probably wouldn't choose GM food, whether from Monsanto or others, because I see GM food as "beta food", and I don't want to be the beta tester. Come back to me after 30-50 years of research for that type of GM product. 2) I do think Monsanto is bad as a company 3) I do think patenting lifeforms, like others have said is bad.
- Blahah 13y ago
  If you look through the comments here, you'll see several people specifically mentioning agent orange as what's wrong with Monsanto. A lot of the current activism against monsanto is due to pressure groups who have hated them for a very long time. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (both of which I used to be a member of until I realised what anti-science crap they were spouting about GMOs) have both had long-running campaigns which have strongly affected the public mood about GMOs. The 'Frankenfoods' Greenpeace campaign set the UK down a particularly crippling path.
  - guelo 13y ago
    I get extremely suspicious when I see super informed commenters defending a controversial corporation like Mosanto.
    - nirnira 13y ago
      If you look into them, common sense will tell you Greenpeace and the modern environment movement in general are full of shit. So you don't need to take the word of internet commenters on that one.
  - herewecome 13y ago
    Blahah, after reading this for a few hours it's pretty easy to conclude, you are oblivious, as well as uneducated to this beautiful thing call self education and peer to peer sharing. AKA, The internet. Countless studies have been released stating the dangers of GMO's, glyphosate, agrobacterium, prions, and everything that has to do with MONSANTO..... Short of being shocked at your ignorance it's people like you holding back this movement.

by Blahah 13y ago

gress 13y ago

They aren't 'just operating within the law'. They are actively lobbying to strengthen it, and to create legal precedents.

Blahah 13y ago
Yup, and that's completely part of the legal framework of the USA. They take advantage just like every other IP-owning company, including basically every tech company in Silicon Valley.
- biehl 13y ago
  But it is morally completely different. If you only "work with the hand you are dealt", you can claim some innocence if that means you do something slightly bad. If you actively work to expand a harmful framework you deserve rough treatment the other way. Sort of like copyright holders that have actively lobbied to lengthen (retroactively) terms. They have no moral standing against being stripped (retroactively) of their copyrights.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    If the law creates artificial scarcity to enable certain types of enterprise (like technology and media), it is creating an incentive for companies in those industries to exploit the legal situation as much as possible. Not only that, but publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to maximise profit for their shareholders[0]. Together these things mean that a successful company in these industries is one that tries to extend the artificial scarcity of their medium. In other words, it's the law, not the companies, that are to blame. Change the law. 0: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
    - biehl 13y ago
      I think we agree that the law should be changed - the point I'm making is that companies that have lobbied are in no (moral) position to complain if the law is changed harshly in their disfavor.
      - Blahah 13y ago
        Well I agree with that :)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

gergles 13y ago

> It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his support, but he definitively broke the law. I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading, but I (and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law. Someone contaminated his property with Roundup-Ready canola. He chose to take advantage of that, isolate it, and replant it. He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense to me; I think a lot of the outrage comes in discovering that Monsanto's patent is on the actual lifeforms themselves, not on the process for turning a regular seed into a roundup-ready seed.

tptacek 13y ago
Just to be clear: glyphosphate pesticides (Roundup) kill normal crops. Roundup-Ready plants resist Roundup. If you treat a normal crop with Roundup, you kill the crop. You would only do that knowing that the crop germinated from patented, Roundup-Ready seeds. You can't do it by accident. That's what Schmeiser did: he was sued by Monsanto not for planting unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds, but for using Roundup on them. It's also worth mentioning that the court did not find credible Schmeiser's claim that his original run of Roundup-Ready seeds were the product of accidental contamination --- upon determining that he was germinating Roundup-Ready plants, Schmeiser applied Roundup to the whole field, and 60% of the field survived. Furthermore, upon learning that he had a field consisting entirely of Roundup-Ready plants, he proceeded preserve and reuse the whole crop for future plantings.
- dionidium 13y ago
  We've actually discussed this on here before and I still don't understand how you've concluded that he was sued for using Roundup. From Wikipedia [0]: "The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells." And: "Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally" He was sued for using their seeds. It has nothing to do with whether or not he applied Roundup. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...

higherpurpose 13y ago

Really? You think people hate Monsanto now because of stuff that happened 50 years ago? Everything bad I've heard about Monsanto has been from the past 5-10 years. Also: 1) I don't think "GM food" per se is bad, however if I had a choice, and knew ahead of time what I'm eating, I probably wouldn't choose GM food, whether from Monsanto or others, because I see GM food as "beta food", and I don't want to be the beta tester. Come back to me after 30-50 years of research for that type of GM product. 2) I do think Monsanto is bad as a company 3) I do think patenting lifeforms, like others have said is bad.

Blahah 13y ago
If you look through the comments here, you'll see several people specifically mentioning agent orange as what's wrong with Monsanto. A lot of the current activism against monsanto is due to pressure groups who have hated them for a very long time. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (both of which I used to be a member of until I realised what anti-science crap they were spouting about GMOs) have both had long-running campaigns which have strongly affected the public mood about GMOs. The 'Frankenfoods' Greenpeace campaign set the UK down a particularly crippling path.
- guelo 13y ago
  I get extremely suspicious when I see super informed commenters defending a controversial corporation like Mosanto.
  - nirnira 13y ago
    If you look into them, common sense will tell you Greenpeace and the modern environment movement in general are full of shit. So you don't need to take the word of internet commenters on that one.
- herewecome 13y ago
  Blahah, after reading this for a few hours it's pretty easy to conclude, you are oblivious, as well as uneducated to this beautiful thing call self education and peer to peer sharing. AKA, The internet. Countless studies have been released stating the dangers of GMO's, glyphosate, agrobacterium, prions, and everything that has to do with MONSANTO..... Short of being shocked at your ignorance it's people like you holding back this movement.