Thanks Marc Brazeau for this. And this is in your honor, Chris Eagle :) Is #Monsanto Evil? Terminator Seed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology Hybrid seeds arent saved for replanting either: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed There has been patent protection for plant breeders in the US since 1930: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights Current non-GMO, non-hybrid seeds have restrictions on their use as well. They can be saved by the farmer to replant but not resold for planting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 Most farmers dont find the Monsanto stewardship agreement onerous: thefarmerslife/biotechnology/i-occupy-our-food-supply-everyday/ Farmers have more choice in seed than a lot of city folk realize. Heres one, but google around, find some seed catalogues, youd be surprised: moews/ If you believe that Monsanto is evil because it sues innocent farmers you got probably started on that with the stories of Moe Parr, Percy Schmeiser and/or Vernon Bowman. Those are the big headline stories in various documentaries. Percy Schmeiser knew damn well he was trying to pull a fast one when he saved RR canola to replant. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser Moe Parr was a seed cleaner who intentionally deceived his customers into believing that it was OK for them to save RR soybeans in violation of their agreements with the company. Read the injunction against him, its easily read in a few minutes, hes no hero: fr/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf [pdf] The most recent headline case was Vernon Bowman. He bought soybeans from an elevator that could legally be sold for feed but not for planting and planted them for a late season second planting, thinking he had found a loophole, he started saving the RR seeds. He had been using RR seeds under agreement for his first planting so he knew damn well what how the patent agreement worked. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co . Farmer Suicides in India: Monsanto doesnt hold a patent on Bt Cotton seeds in India. Farmers there found pirated seed so useful, that a grassroots, underground economy of Bt cotton breeding sprang up spontaneously before the crop had even been approved by the government. It forced the governments hand and Bt cotton was approved because of grassroots pressure from small farmers. https://youtube/watch?v=RxpypapQeDk The role of Bt cotton in farmer suicides in India has been thoroughly debunked. In fact if you read the original report where the allegation arose with a clear eye, it seems like a gratuitous swipe piled on top of real hurdles that farmers there face in regards to lack of access to credit and a proper system of crop insurance. Not surprising that the government started blaming seed companies. news.nationalpost/2013/01/26/the-myth-of-indias-gm-genocide-genetically-modified-cotton-blamed-for-wave-of-farmer-suicides/ What I havent been able to find clear, credible info on is the legal standing of the licensing agreements Monsanto/Mahayco and the 28 seed companies that they worked with. If there is no patent, how did they gain control of the market after the initial wave of entrepreneurial breeding? It also hard to get a handle on exactly how hardball Monsantos surveillance and legal strategy is with seed saving farmers, elevators and cleaners. The description of what happened to Gary Rinehart in Bartlett and Steeles account is substantially different from the companys account. The facts dont seem to diverge in the companys account of the Pilot Grove affair but the companys legal strategy seems pretty ruthless in B&Ss account vanityfair/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 monsanto/newsviews/Pages/gary-rinehart.aspx monsanto/newsviews/Pages/pilot-grove-coop.aspx In context though was are talking about 140 something legal cases over two decades out of a quarter million patent agreement signing customers a year. With 11 cases gone to trial, all of which were won by Monsanto. The wrongly aggrieved farmer has yet to surface. The other thing I dont have a great handle on is rBST and whether research was held back prior to approval. I also am not crazy about legal strategy of trying to block dairies that advertise their milk as rBST free. My central point here, is that for the worlds most reviled company, I cant find credible, hard evidence of wrong doing thats more recent than 18 years ago. Sometimes you have to hit the reset button on your impressions.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:47:10 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015