[PassedOut]

Here's a business plan for you:

• Develop a chemical that kills virtually every plant (let's call it Roundup)
  
• Develop a seed that resists Roundup, so crops can still be grown
  
• Charge farmers for all of the seeds that resist Roundup
  
• Sue the hell out of farmers that plant discarded seeds not purchased from the corporation

One stubborn farmer is fighing back: Farmer’s use of genetically modified soybeans grows into Supreme Court case

Quote

What Bowman did was to take commodity grain from the local elevator, which is usually used for feed, and plant it. But that grain was mostly progeny of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready beans because that’s what most Indiana soybean farmers grow. Those soybeans are genetically modified to survive the weedkiller Roundup, and Monsanto claims that Bowman’s planting violated the company’s restrictions.

Those supporting Bowman hope the court uses the case, which is scheduled for oral arguments later this month, to hit the reset button on corporate domination of agribusiness and what they call Monsanto’s “legal assault” on farmers who don’t toe the line. Monsanto’s supporters say advances in health and environmental research are endangered.

And the case raises questions about the traditional role of farmers.

For instance: When a farmer grows Monsanto’s genetically modified soybean seeds, has he simply “used” the seed to create a crop to sell, or has he “made” untold replicas of Monsanto’s invention that remain subject to the company’s restrictions?

My whole career has been in business, but this business plan of Monsanto's strikes me as reprehensible. What has happened to common sense?

Seems to me that Monsanto should be paying farmers for killing all the crops that farmers used to grow before Roundup started killing them. Or, at the very least, to be forced to provide the Roundup resistant seeds to farmers at low cost.

I note that the courts and the Obama administration are with the corporation. I'm with the farmer.

[Cthulhu D]

 PassedOut, on 2013-February-10, 13:15, said:

One stubborn farmer is fighing back: Farmer’s use of genetically modified soybeans grows into Supreme Court case


My whole career has been in business, but this business plan of Monsanto's strikes me as reprehensible. What has happened to common sense?

Seems to me that Monsanto should be paying farmers for killing all the crops that farmers used to grow before Roundup started killing them. Or, at the very least, to be forced to provide the Roundup resistant seeds to farmers at low cost.

I note that the courts and the Obama administration are with the corporation. I'm with the farmer.

How DARE you critique the free market? How can unrestricted markets ever result in anything less than the optimal allocation of capital? /sarcasm.

[onoway]

There is also another U.S. class action against Monsanto in the works which is trying to make the company responsible for contamination of the fields and crops of organic farmers.

Since a large proportion if not the majority of people in the US government department overseeing what can be labelled organic are former Monsanto employees it will be interesting to see how the government deals with this, since contamination is decidedly well established.

One example of hundreds; jellyfish genes were installed in the DNA of some potato plants to make them luminescent. These plants were allowed only as marker plants but the jellyfish genes have unexpectedly turned up in potatoes outside their allotted areas.

As a side note, RoundUp has been found to be toxic to fish and other living creatures and it does NOT become inert when it hits the ground (or groundwater) and it has been linked to such things as increased incidence of prostate cancer and miscarriages among people who handle it a lot. This was shown by at least two studies by different independent groups which have effectively been buried by Monsanto and ignored by governments.

The GMO seed/RoundUp use is also leading to the development of superweeds which are immune to RoundUp. GMO corn, in almost every processed food in some form of sugar or starch, was bred to be immune to the corn borer, but instead has given rise to cornborers who have adapted and happilly munch away on it. So chem companies are busilly developing yet more virulent poisons to spray on or install in the DNA of food crops.

Marketting which isn't constrained by truth or socially responsible behaviour and is backed by almost unlimited funds is a marvel to behold.

[kenberg]

Farmers once needed forty acres and a mule. Times change, and the mule gets replaced by a law firm.

Toward the end of the article we see:

Quote

Universities, economists, intellectual property experts and seed companies have weighed in on Monsanto's behalf.

I am not surprised. Genetic modification and food gets the adrenalin going, let's try a boring variant. As a math prof, even in semi-retirement, I have free access to some sophisticated computing technology. There are restrictions on its use. Suppose, analogous to farming, I create a very useful Mathematica program with commercial value. Of course the University, and Wolfram, the makers of Mathematica, would object if I made large amounts of money running this program off the University computers. OK, now suppose that I take this program that I developed using University resources and figure out how to make it run as a stand alone, no longer using Mathematica. Now I can make a fortune and keep it all? I don't know, but I doubt it. I am pretty sure that either Wolfram or the University, or both, would come around and explain that they have a valid claim to at least some of the cash.

This is hypothetical with me, I have no plans to work that hard, but if I am not mistaken something like this played out with Stanford University and the Google guys Brin and Paige. They got started on Google while they were grad students at Stanford and I can imagine they made heavy ise of Stanford's computer labs. I think that Stanford expected and received some settlement from Google based on this. I am not certain, but I think this is right.


Ok, back to farming. Keeping the weeds down and the soy crop up is very desirable, and Monsanto figured out how to do it using their products: Weed killer and a soybean seed that will grow when the weed killer is used. Farmers see this as a good thing and want it, Monsanto wants to make a profit from their product. Monsanto sells the product under terms that protect their profits, the farmer has, or thinks that he has, found a way around this agreement.

So it goes to court. What else is new. The amount of time that I have spent in lawyer's offices during my life is very very small. I really like that. But part of the reason for this is that I don't sign agreements and then try to find a way to skirt around what I have signed.


I don't think that these issues are all that simple.

[mike777]

Typical the regulators in govt become captives of the regulated, this happens all the time.

As for the studies and links...I would be much more interested in what evidence the studies did not find?

For some reason this part of the study always seems to get buried even though this is often the statistically significant part and most interesting.


I generally trust studies that look for evidence of something but then dont find it more than those that look for something and claim to find evidence of what they are looking for.


If a atudy looked for any "good benefit evidence" that comes from using GMO seed and found none...that would be interesting.

[kenberg]

I heartily share your skepticism of studies.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2013-February-11, 09:03, said:

Ok, back to farming. Keeping the weeds down and the soy crop up is very desirable, and Monsanto figured out how to do it using their products: Weed killer and a soybean seed that will grow when the weed killer is used. Farmers see this as a good thing and want it, Monsanto wants to make a profit from their product. Monsanto sells the product under terms that protect their profits, the farmer has, or thinks that he has, found a way around this agreement.

Note that the farmer did pay for the seeds that he bought from Monsanto, and in no way can be considered to have "found a way around" any agreement he made with Monsanto. Let's not introduce lawyerly complexities to subvert common sense.

The dispute comes about because the farmer bought seeds from a grain elevator, perfectly legally, and then planted those seeds instead of using them for feed. Monsanto claims that some of the RoundUp resistant seeds were mixed in with the grain elevator seeds (because so many other farmers use the Monsanto seeds), so he could not put the grain-elevator-purchased seeds into the ground.

[mike777]

Sounds sort of like the issue with ART.


What ownership rights does an artist have after selling his ART? Do they get to share in the resale value or do they maintain other rights?

[ArtK78]

The issue appears to be whether Bowman, the farmer, violated restrictions on the use of the seed that he purchased from the grain elevator. What is not stated is whether Bowman knew of the restrictions or whether the restrictions applied to the seed purchased from the grain elevator. From context it appears that the restrictions on use still applied, and that Bowman violated those restrictions.

Obviously, it cannot be that simple, or else Bowman would lose and the US Supreme Court would not be hearing the case.

 mike777, on 2013-February-11, 09:49, said:

Sounds sort of like the issue with ART.

I guarantee that it is not an issue with me.

[mike777]

Yes as pointed out not clear what agreement Bowman had and with who.( this may be incorrect English also.)

Also some regulations or parts of the contract assuming there is one may just be illegal or against public policy...again not clear.

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2013-February-11, 10:03, said:

Yes as pointed out not clear what agreement Bowman had and with who.( this may be incorrect English also.)

Also some regulations or parts of the contract assuming there is one may just be illegal or against public policy...again not clear.

What we have here is a farmer planting seeds.

This is not a man trying to reverse-engineer Monsanto seeds to develop his own competing seeds. This is not a man using Monsanto (or University) facilities to create a product to sell to others. This is not a man trying to deny a company its rightful (if you believe that) profits.

This is a farmer fighting for the right to plant less expensive seeds in his fields.

[gwnn]

 PassedOut, on 2013-February-11, 10:37, said:

What we have here is a farmer planting seeds.

This is not a man trying to reverse-engineer Monsanto seeds to develop his own competing seeds. This is not a man using Monsanto (or University) facilities to create a product to sell to others. This is not a man trying to deny a company its rightful (if you believe that) profits.

This is a farmer fighting for the right to plant less expensive seeds in his fields.

This is also a farmer who may or may not have violated agreements (signed directly or indirectly) with the Monsanto company. It is hard to tell whether he has done so without reading the hundreds of pages of said agreements. Anything less than that will amount to little more than idle speculation on our part.

[PassedOut]

 gwnn, on 2013-February-11, 10:41, said:

This is also a farmer who may or may not have violated agreements (signed directly or indirectly) with the Monsanto company. It is hard to tell whether he has done so without reading the hundreds of pages of said agreements. Anything less than that will amount to little more than idle speculation on our part.

No doubt the legal issues will be sorted out. My interest is in the bigger picture.

You have a farmer doing what farmers have been doing for many, many years. Now a corporation has succeeded in creating a situation in which the farmer cannot continue to farm without paying a corporation for expensive seeds. And it is because of the corporation's actions that normal seeds no longer produce crops.

To me, this situation itself is indefensible, whatever lawyerly complexities people toss out to justify it. It will be interesting to see whether or not justice prevails here.

[ArtK78]

If the seeds sold were subject to restrictions on how they could be used, then Bowman was subject to those restrictions. There is no "bigger picture."

What you see as "justice" or "the bigger picture" may in fact be an illegal use of the product sold.

[Trinidad]

So, at the grain elevator they sell seeds for feed at a lower price than the seeds for planting. That means that the seeds are supposed to be used for feed. Seems clear to me.

In The Netherlands, we have a lot of taxes on car fuel. Part of these taxes are meant as a road tax. Some vehicles (e.g. agricultural equipment) or machines are predominantly used on private property and not on the road. They have the right to get diesel fuel where they don't need to pay for the road tax component. This is simply done by adding a red colorant to the standard diesel and selling it at a separate pump. Of course, it is technically perfectly possible to put the "agricultural diesel" in your car. It will run just as good as on the agricultural diesel. But if you are caught on the road with red diesel in your fuel tank, you will go to jail for fraud.

This case is similar. The seeds are sold to be used for feed. That means that other use is illegal and can land you in jail, no matter how these seeds are biologically the same as the expensive ones.

Similar case. I get a cell phone plan, which includes a nice phone. I get the phone under the condition that I will use it with that plan for a year. During that year I am not allowed to sell the phone or use it with another plan. In this case they actually make it somewhat difficult for me to use the phone with another plan, but if I would remove the SIM-lock I would technically be able to call with a different plan. But I am not allowed to.

These conditional sales are everywhere. You either abide by the conditions or you face the consequences.

The only questions that are interesting for the lawyers is whether the terms and conditions were set up and communicated properly. That is for the lawyers, but the fundamental principle that a sale can come with conditions is perfectly normal.

Rik

[y66]

This is a fascinating story. Will read up and maybe try to attend the arguments before the Supreme Court next Tuesday. Have never done that.

[onoway]

 mike777, on 2013-February-11, 09:16, said:

Typical the regulators in govt become captives of the regulated, this happens all the time.

As for the studies and links...I would be much more interested in what evidence the studies did not find?

For some reason this part of the study always seems to get buried even though this is often the statistically significant part and most interesting.


I generally trust studies that look for evidence of something but then dont find it more than those that look for something and claim to find evidence of what they are looking for.


If a atudy looked for any "good benefit evidence" that comes from using GMO seed and found none...that would be interesting.

Good lord. So you don't care that the food you eat has been so fiddled with that it may be actually causing health problems now rampant such as diabetes and arthritis to say nothing of cancer and other diseases?

Or that crop failures may lead to famine, not only in third world countries, but in the US and other countries so dependant on corn and soybeans?

Or that part of the reason the price of food has gone up is because the cost of seed that farmers are forced to buy (and the chemicals they are force to buy so that the seed will actually probably grow and produce anything) has risen astronomically over the past few years as Monsanto and their ilk control more and more of the food production of the world?

No wonder Monsanto is so successful with politicians!

One major objection many people have to GMO seeds is not that they have been fiddled with but that farmers are being forced to grow and people are being forced to eat this material with NO long term studies on what effects these "foods" may have on humans over time.

If you read the information sheet that the druggist gives you with your medication, you will find that some drugs, even antibiotics, e.g. can cause serious damage to your liver and this effect MAY NOT SHOW UP FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER YOU STOP TAKING THE DRUG. This is one chemical taken for a short length of time, usually not more than two weeks maximum.

Thalidomide consequences did not show up for 8 or 9 months and the scientist ( a Canadian, yay) who blew the whistle on that was reviled, mocked and abused by other scientists.

The studies done by Monsanto on GMO foods are short term. One long term study http://www.biolsci.o....htm#headingA11 gives rise to some concerns which should lead to further long term studies but instead has been met with denial and counter accusations.

I don't think the OPTION of eating non GMO foods should be denied as it is now. If you ever eat any processed food, ever drink sodapop or use normal canola oil you are part of an experimental group which may indeed eventually show exactly what these "foods" are doing to us over time.

Farmers often do NOT want to grow GMO seeds. A whole lot of Canadians farmers got together and appealed to the government to put a hold on GMO flaxseed approval but the Harper government refused to deny Monsanto. Since Monsanto owns some of the major buyers of grain crops, if the farmers want to have access to major markets then they have to grow what Monsanto tells them to grow, and guess what Monsanto is saying?

Monsanto got approval to release GMO alfalfa over huge opposition in the States and nobody has a clue what - if anything- may happen to the bee populations already under stress from what some have identified as colony collapse disorder associated with pesticide and herbicide residues.

The GMO seeds do not guarrantee a good harvest,in spite of the advertising aimed at increasingly helpless farmers. http://www.ucsusa.or...ilures-dangers/

Did you know that some of the chemicals used on food crops call for hazmat equipment for the farmer? This is something not advertised by Monsanto commercials.

The problem is that once farmers have used these extremely potent chemicals on their land it takes an average of three years before the land recovers enough to grow anything much at all without the artificial chemicals. Some of these chemicals can effectively sterilize the soil for ten years or more. I once inadvertently bought some hay which had been sprayed with some agricultural spray, three bales out of 60 or so 1500 pound bales. Where those three bales sat is bare black sterile dirt, nothing at all has grown there for 8 years now. I transplanted some healthy buckwheat seedlings around the edges and they all immediately died. Where the other bales sat, the organic matter from scattered uneaten hay has given rise to lush volunteer growth of grasses and weeds. But Monsanto assures us that none of their chemicals are actually in the parts of the plants we eat. Where are the studies proving that?

I know someone who raised horses and one year had to buy hay which they later found out had been sprayed with RoundUp to dessicate it. Every single one of their pregnant mares aborted. This is consistent with the findings of this study http://www.scribd.co...undup-Herbicide

Governments everywhere are struggling with the costs of health care. How is it, then, that there aren't a whole lot of studies looking at the possible relationship between GMO foods and the marked increase in various autoimmune disorders such as some forms of arthritis which only show up after a long time of continued stress. Or that further studies aren't looking at what the change in gut bacteria caused by eating GMO foods may mean? This especially since now there has been an unrelated study showing that a change in gut bacteria may contribute to the development of diabetes, some degree of which is now considered to affect possibly as many as one in four older Canadians?

If you want to eat what has been labelled fake phood then go for it, but don't force it on the rest of us. Monsanto is even trying to prevent the OPTION of growing anything except their seeds..already there are regulations in Europe making it illegal to sell, give away or trade any seed not on an "approved" list. This is not just for commercial growers but also the guy who grows some tomatoes or other veggies in his back yard. Thatchers in Britain are no longer allowed to grow the strains of grain they traditionally used for thatching but must import it, for another example.

Almost exactly the same phraseology was used in legislation put forth in NZ which was met with such public opposition it was at least for now, withdrawn. I cannot believe anyone thinks this is in any way a good idea...except for Monsanto.

[onoway]

As far as the legal stuff...I have never been asked to say what I have planned to do with a sack of grain I've bought. Using food grade seed for planting is certainly a common practice. I know people who save seeds from the pepper and other veggies they;ve bought and liked, to grow in their garden. This is illegal for anything produced by Monsanto, but I am quite sure they have no idea where the plants came from.

That's why Monsanto has been busy developing seed which will grow and produce seed but it won't be viable. There might be some question as to how valuable such seed is as food but that is not an issue for Monsanto.

There are stories of families surviving the thirties by planting some of the dried beans provided by the government to desperately impoverished people and thus providing much more food for themselves than they otherwise could.

How intelligent to find that illegal. not.

As far as I can tell the whole sack was NOT GMO seed, just some of it. So he might have a countersuit that his seed was contaminated by GMO seed.

[PassedOut]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-11, 11:27, said:

If the seeds sold were subject to restrictions on how they could be used, then Bowman was subject to those restrictions. There is no "bigger picture."

If it is that simple, why did the Supreme Court choose to hear the case?

[kenberg]

Take an extreme variant: A farmer decides to buy Mosanto seeds but has no plans to gtow and sell soybeans. His plan is to use these seeds to provide more seeds and then to go into business selling these derived seeds. My guess is that the contract Mosanto requires clearly p[rohibits this and the courts will back them up. So now we go down a slope. If I have it right, basically the farmer sells his product to the grain elevator and as a result there are some derived seeds that he buys back at a good price (partly because they are mixed in with other stuff) and then he uses them to plant crops. So: If he did what the grain elevator people did and then he sold the derived seeds himself he would be in clear violation of his contract (I am supposing that this is true). But instead he has the grain elevator people do it as an incidental part of their other activities and then he buys them back for his own commerical use. True it's his own use, but it's not just to feed his family soybeans at the dinner table, it's commercial use. Is this still a violation of contract?

I am not a lawyer, not a farmer, not a businessman so of course I cannot answer these questions. I can see why Mosanto would want to protect the profits from their research activity. Of course I can also see why a farmer wants to save money on seed purchases.

I don't think it is clear cut either way. When cable first started there would be bars that would show games. There still are, of course. But the finances had to be worked out. I think the bar owner pays more for the right to show a game to a large group of customers than I pay to sit in my living room and watch privately. It's a matter of others making a financial gain from someone else's research and technology. Sometimes this is legit, sometimes not. It's a brave new world out there.