4 ms·

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get

by nodata 11y ago

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

daeken 11y ago
> One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour. Except that it's never happened, to my knowledge. Monsanto has sued farmers for using their seeds illegally, and in those cases it was shown that the farmers did so knowingly -- accidental cross-contamination has never been sued over. For instance, in one case a farmer claimed accidental cross-contamination while using Roundup on the same crops (which would've killed non-GM crops); in another, the field was found to be nearly 100% GM crops, a virtual impossibility unless seeds were explicitly and knowingly planted. Monsanto does many things that people can take issue with (e.g. patenting seeds, which isn't reserved for GM crops, mind you), but this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Edit: C.f. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
- nodata 11y ago
  > this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You mean it's wrong, let's not exaggerate here. I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary featuring three farmers.
  - daeken 11y ago
    Wrong is me miscalculating some figures; bullshit is people spreading FUD that can be debunked with 2 minutes of Googling. This myth didn't start as a misconception or simple wrongness -- it was created to persuade people that Monsanto is a big bad company that's doing horrible things.
sampo 11y ago
> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fragmede 11y ago
  From that Wikipedia page: In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".
  - daeken 11y ago
    They mistakenly sued him -- that part is the mistake. The mistake was not them suing at all, because the people actually operating the land were, in fact, violating their patents; they just mistakenly thought that he was one of the people using that land at the time.
  - sampo 11y ago
    Oh, you even stopped quoting in mid-sentence. Isn't that a bit dirty? Let me quote a bit more: "In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake."
  - sampo 11y ago
    > seems to contradict No it does not. What /u/nodata wrote was: "...for accidentally having a field next to..." and Gary Rinehart was not sued for accidentally having his field next to whatever. He was sued for some other reason. (Not a good reason, but other reason anyway.)

by nodata 11y ago

daeken 11y ago

> One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour. Except that it's never happened, to my knowledge. Monsanto has sued farmers for using their seeds illegally, and in those cases it was shown that the farmers did so knowingly -- accidental cross-contamination has never been sued over. For instance, in one case a farmer claimed accidental cross-contamination while using Roundup on the same crops (which would've killed non-GM crops); in another, the field was found to be nearly 100% GM crops, a virtual impossibility unless seeds were explicitly and knowingly planted. Monsanto does many things that people can take issue with (e.g. patenting seeds, which isn't reserved for GM crops, mind you), but this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Edit: C.f. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...

nodata 11y ago
> this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You mean it's wrong, let's not exaggerate here. I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary featuring three farmers.
- daeken 11y ago
  Wrong is me miscalculating some figures; bullshit is people spreading FUD that can be debunked with 2 minutes of Googling. This myth didn't start as a misconception or simple wrongness -- it was created to persuade people that Monsanto is a big bad company that's doing horrible things.

sampo 11y ago

> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fragmede 11y ago
From that Wikipedia page: In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".
- daeken 11y ago
  They mistakenly sued him -- that part is the mistake. The mistake was not them suing at all, because the people actually operating the land were, in fact, violating their patents; they just mistakenly thought that he was one of the people using that land at the time.
- sampo 11y ago
  Oh, you even stopped quoting in mid-sentence. Isn't that a bit dirty? Let me quote a bit more: "In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake."
- sampo 11y ago
  > seems to contradict No it does not. What /u/nodata wrote was: "...for accidentally having a field next to..." and Gary Rinehart was not sued for accidentally having his field next to whatever. He was sued for some other reason. (Not a good reason, but other reason anyway.)