4 ms·

Relating to Roundup Ready crops: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa

by sb057 11y ago

Relating to Roundup Ready crops: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... Straight from Monsanto's mouth: they sue farmers who replant Monsanto seeds. If you buy Monsanto's seeds, you are not allowed to plant the seed from those crops. Otherwise Monsanto will sue. Why? As they explain, verbatim: 1) no business can survive without being paid for its product 2) the loss of this revenue would hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market. 3) it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field. I'll let you make your own conclusions, but... 1) Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year. 2) Monsanto currently pulls in around $10 million dollars per day in profit, meaning that such an investment hit would not exactly hurt their bottom line. 3) This is dependent on the practice being a constructive one.

lbenes 11y ago
I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops. Roundup is carcingenic to human[1], killing the monarch butterfly[2], and the monoculture practices it encourages is causing massive soil erosion in our nation's farm belt. [3] Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-proba... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-s...
- sampo 11y ago
  > Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. Spraying herbicides is actually the less disruptive method for fighting weeds. The other option is tilling the soil, which leads to much higher erosion.
  - lbenes 11y ago
    The USDA's scientist Robert Kremer's research does not back Monsato's claims about reducing erosion.[1] What is clear from the research is that roundup: * causes damage to beneficial microbes in the soil increasing the likelihood of infection of a crop by soil pathogens * interference with nutrient uptake by the plant * reduced efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation * overall lower-than-expected plant productivity [2] Not to mention that superweeds have already caused thousands of acres of US farmland to be abandoned. [3] Instead of using GMO for good like golden rice, Monsanto uses it to turn farmers in toxic chemical addicts at the both the expense of our heath and that of our nation's farmland. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regulators-idUSTRE63C2AJ20100413 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regula... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL=y http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL... [3] http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-and-the-superweeds-did-it/ http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-...
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Contrary to popular opinion, farmers in 2015 are not particularly dumb; over the last 30-40 years, agriculture has been transformed into an analytical and technology-centered enterprise. If glyphosate isn't as productive for farmers as Monsanto claims, why is it so overwhelmingly widely used in modern agriculture?
- jqm 11y ago
  RE #2. _Possibly_ loss of milkweed is killing the Monarch, not necessarily Roundup. (Better weed control means less weeds). Weed sprays have been in use for decades. Roundup happens to be one of the safer ones. Claiming that Roundup is killing the Monarch is just.... silly. Farmers need to control weeds. That's the bottom line. If people are (rightly) concerned about the Monarch they should do the obvious... cultivate some dedicated patches of milkweed rather than expecting farmers to have weeds in their fields. Put your money where your mouth is. Get a campaign together and pay farmers to grow a few acres of milkweed.
ChrisLomont 11y ago
> Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year. And they still can. Farmers can still use them also - no one is forcing them buy Monsanto. If paying for them each year did not benefit farmers, they would stop using them. If you don't want to pay for them, don't use them. Problem solved. The fact that such a huge amount of farmers chose them shows they must be profitable for farmers and Monsanto alike. Win-win, right? This make believe fear is not a problem. Besides, the earliest Monsanto seeds come off patent protection very soon, then you can replant all you like.
- adamauckland 11y ago
  > And they still can. Farmers can still use them also - no one is forcing them buy Monsanto. > If you don't want to pay for them, don't use them. Problem solved. Problem not solved. Seeds from a neighbouring farm are naturally dispersed through wind or animals into a farmers ground. Now he is breaking the law and will be sued. This has happened.
  - ChrisLomont 11y ago
    Show the citation for a single legal case. This has not happened, despite the pop beliefs it has.
  - daeken 11y ago
    This has never happened. Not even once. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9517150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9517150

by sb057 11y ago

lbenes 11y ago

I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops. Roundup is carcingenic to human[1], killing the monarch butterfly[2], and the monoculture practices it encourages is causing massive soil erosion in our nation's farm belt. [3] Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-proba... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-s...

sampo 11y ago
> Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. Spraying herbicides is actually the less disruptive method for fighting weeds. The other option is tilling the soil, which leads to much higher erosion.
- lbenes 11y ago
  The USDA's scientist Robert Kremer's research does not back Monsato's claims about reducing erosion.[1] What is clear from the research is that roundup: * causes damage to beneficial microbes in the soil increasing the likelihood of infection of a crop by soil pathogens * interference with nutrient uptake by the plant * reduced efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation * overall lower-than-expected plant productivity [2] Not to mention that superweeds have already caused thousands of acres of US farmland to be abandoned. [3] Instead of using GMO for good like golden rice, Monsanto uses it to turn farmers in toxic chemical addicts at the both the expense of our heath and that of our nation's farmland. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regulators-idUSTRE63C2AJ20100413 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regula... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL=y http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL... [3] http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-and-the-superweeds-did-it/ http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Contrary to popular opinion, farmers in 2015 are not particularly dumb; over the last 30-40 years, agriculture has been transformed into an analytical and technology-centered enterprise. If glyphosate isn't as productive for farmers as Monsanto claims, why is it so overwhelmingly widely used in modern agriculture?
jqm 11y ago
RE #2. _Possibly_ loss of milkweed is killing the Monarch, not necessarily Roundup. (Better weed control means less weeds). Weed sprays have been in use for decades. Roundup happens to be one of the safer ones. Claiming that Roundup is killing the Monarch is just.... silly. Farmers need to control weeds. That's the bottom line. If people are (rightly) concerned about the Monarch they should do the obvious... cultivate some dedicated patches of milkweed rather than expecting farmers to have weeds in their fields. Put your money where your mouth is. Get a campaign together and pay farmers to grow a few acres of milkweed.

ChrisLomont 11y ago

> Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year. And they still can. Farmers can still use them also - no one is forcing them buy Monsanto. If paying for them each year did not benefit farmers, they would stop using them. If you don't want to pay for them, don't use them. Problem solved. The fact that such a huge amount of farmers chose them shows they must be profitable for farmers and Monsanto alike. Win-win, right? This make believe fear is not a problem. Besides, the earliest Monsanto seeds come off patent protection very soon, then you can replant all you like.

adamauckland 11y ago
> And they still can. Farmers can still use them also - no one is forcing them buy Monsanto. > If you don't want to pay for them, don't use them. Problem solved. Problem not solved. Seeds from a neighbouring farm are naturally dispersed through wind or animals into a farmers ground. Now he is breaking the law and will be sued. This has happened.
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  Show the citation for a single legal case. This has not happened, despite the pop beliefs it has.
- daeken 11y ago
  This has never happened. Not even once. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9517150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9517150