Monsanto: All Your Seeds Are Belong to Us

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case

by napolux • 13 years ago

59 136 13 years ago

motherjones.com

mschuster91• 13 years ago

That nature can be patented at all is a gross violation of human rights.

Nature and biology should not be restricted by anything. Ever.

jaramburu• 13 years ago

It is so profitable to be evil

Svip• 13 years ago

Makes you wonder why Monsanto aren't considered the Worst Company in the United States. For my money, I find BP and oil companies as well as the banks incompetent but with a bit of malice.

Monsanto, on the other hand, are pure evil.

chrisvineup• 13 years ago

I couldn't agree more.

penny50032• 13 years ago

Helping farmers increase their yield, which makes food cheaper for the poor, is "pure evil"?

jayfuerstenberg12• 13 years ago

Monsanto created Agent Orange and DDT, claiming at the time that both were perfectly safe for humans. Now we know better.

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml

The results for GMOs is mixed but is not looking good for Monsanto at the moment.

We don't need to fix the food system, it wasn't broken to begin with.

webreac• 13 years ago

you are dis-informed.

smutticus• 13 years ago

1) The problem with poor people not having enough to eat is unrelated to underproduction of food. It's a much more complex problem then that.

2) Ask the thousands of Indian farmers who committed suicide because their crops failed how helpful Monsanto was.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc...

"When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death."

3) Monsant's entire argument rests on taking farmers' rights away. From TFA:

"Monsanto contends that the patent violation is Bowman's fault because he took the grains and used them to create new versions of Monsanto's patented soybeans that Monsanto, the patent holder, hadn't sold him."

Monsanto wants planting a seed to be patent violation. They want to stop you buying something and putting it into the ground.

Fuck Monsanto and everything that they stand for.

stagas13• 13 years ago

The argument "making food cheaper for the poor" doesn't give you a pass messing with nature and people's health. I can make food cheaper by killing half of the population since there's going to be more left for the rest of us! Does this justify my action?

Get real, food has grown and can grow naturally and there are natural ways to have healthy crops that don't need dangerous pesticides. Nature has been working in a balance since ever and they are messing with it. It's MY nature they are messing with. All they're doing is maximizing profits at the expense of everything and everybody else.

belorn3• 13 years ago

Its hard to beat the irony where a game development company, A company with the business model of producing entertainment, is voted as the Worst Company in the United States.

Bryan222• 13 years ago

2 pop ups in 3 seconds. Monsanto is evil everyone gets it. Not to mention the recent political scandal... but I'm not reading the article. Pop-ups are equally evil.

milfot2• 13 years ago

If the pop-ups infect your computer and write spurious code into all your saved work thereby taking ownership of them and then sue your sorry arse into the ground for theft.. then yes, pop-ups are equally evil.

Bryan222• 13 years ago

If pop ups increased the amount of data my hard drive could store they'd be equally good... Monsanto is an evil corporation but GMOs are pretty much the only reason there's going to be enough food for "your sorry arse" to eat in 10 years. The farmers have to pay for the seeds, yes, but their yield is much higher than without them. Sounds like the guy knew what he was doing when he bought the second hand seeds. Why don't you spend billions of dollars on a piece of software, sell it to me cheap and allow me to sell knock offs for 1/2 your asking price; lets see how you feel about it then...

tellarin• 13 years ago

At least the Supreme Court is hearing the case. Hope they take the right decision here.

I can't understand how Monsanto can make these claims with a straight face. The guys didn't license the seeds from them. If much, they could go after whoever sold the seeds to the grain elevator, but that's also quite a stretch.

Also, what happens if some other regular seed shipment is "contaminated" by Monsanto seeds in any way? Is a farmer/buyer supposed to have to pay them for not doing DNA analysis in all seeds? WTF?!

jayfuerstenberg12• 13 years ago

Not if Clarence Thomas has anything to say about it.

Monsanto and the FDA are a revolving door for each other and Clarence used to work for Monsanto.

Major_Grooves• 13 years ago

Monsanto made the roundup-ready soybeans, which took millions to develop. If the farmer doesn't want to be sued, he could use non-roundup-ready soybeans.

Or, presumably, he can wait till the original patent expires, then he can use the roundup-ready soybeans freely.

I'm all for calling out unethical companies and IP trolls, but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.

Locke1689• 13 years ago

This does seem to be a pretty decent area to provide intellectual property-based incentives for. The fundamental innovation here is intellectual -- it's the engineering of a new genetic code.

All of us are familiar with something similar -- engineering of new computer code.

It is often granted that computer code provides unique benefits worth protecting. I can certainly see why genetic engineering deserves similar protections.

That said, this is a fairly complicated piece of case law and I could definitely see how it could fall through the cracks in naively written legislation.

markive• 13 years ago

I suggest you watch the documentary Food Inc to see why it isn't as straightforward as that..

randomdata8• 13 years ago

I assume you are referring to the fact that the traits can make their way into non-GMO seeds due to the way nature functions? However, Monsanto has only been able to successfully defend their patents when gross violations have occurred – i.e. the crop has also been sprayed with roundup. Someone who is honestly trying to grow non-RR seed is obviously not going to be doing that.

Monsanto has been so successful with this because, for 99% of the farmers out there, these patents have no effect on their business. It wasn't particularly common to grow your own seeds for a variety of reasons, even before the patents came into effect.

penny50032• 13 years ago

I suggest you read actual peer-review scientific journal articles on the matter instead of relying on a documentary you saw on NetFlix.

CaptainZapp6• 13 years ago

> I'm all for calling out unethical companies and IP trolls

In terms of unethical Monsanto is in the absolute top league. This is a company, which positively can be described as evil.

I suggest you do some reading up about this company.

aantix• 13 years ago

> but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything

How about addressing his point?

penny50032• 13 years ago

I love the claims for calling this company "evil" with absolutely no scientific proof given. I thought we were supposed to be believers in science and due process.

mondo989• 13 years ago

Babies born near the "RoundUp Ready" Farms have been known to have higher birth defects:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23430.cfm

randomdata8• 13 years ago

I didn't see anything in that article related to roundup ready crops, just concerns over the use of glyphosate, which has been used long before the advent of roundup ready seed.

belorn3• 13 years ago

> what's the point in developing anything.

One good reason to developing better farming techniques is that a large number of wealthy organization would profit, and such are more than willing to spend money on research. If I went to the military and said I had a method to produce biofuel at 50% the current price, would a likely response be: "No! If you don't have a patent, we are not going to give you any money for that. We are happy to spend loads of money on more expensive methods for fuel. We the army lives for patents!"

Lets take a hard look on something like corn. From chemical industry to food to fuel. I am sure not a single company would want to spend money on research into better production if there was no patents. Cheaper production and less risks be damned.

Or... and this is just a thought... Some research is like math. There is intrinsic benefit from improved technology. The army is not hurt because others can also produce cheaper fuel.

_seininn• 13 years ago

> unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.

To make money.

Companies (and people) have been developing new technology long before patents were introduced, and something tells me that they will continue to do so just fine even in the unlikely event of the patent system is abolished.

The millions spent give them the advantage of being the first to introduce this type of product in market. Nothing more.

on a personal note: I'd hate to think what would have happened if everyone throughout history thought of "IP" the same way people nowadays seem to think. We'd probably just started producing cars that need to be cranked to start.

vidarh2• 13 years ago

> but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.

So there was no progress in the world at all prior to the creation of patent law?

You could argue about whether or not patents cause more progress, but it is quite obviously not the case that companies not have any reason to develop anything without patents, given that companies did develop things without patent protection for a simple reason: If not, they'd get crushed by their competition.

Sure, they could copy things, but then they'd be stuck in perpetual catch-up mode figuring out all things they can't quickly glean from the copy, such as the optimal way of manufacturing the product. They'd also face substantial risk: What if a competitor comes up with something they're unable to figure out how to copy quickly?

And it is clear that there's plenty of profit to be had without being the "low cost generic" copycat even once the copycats enter the market.

E.g. Boots patent on Ibuprofen ran out a long time ago, yet Boots successfully created (and sold off) the Nurofen brand that still sells Ibuprofen (and other) products at 10-20 times retail price of generic products (including, amusingly, Boots own "generic" store brand).

michaelbuddy4• 13 years ago

let's not forget the farmer whose crops had monsanto mixed in, likely due to the windy conditions. Monsanto sued and took his farm because of a natural environmental occurence.

For things like that, they are a vicious and unethical fast moving train that will crush good people for their own profit. Don't just think you can avoid them and everything will be ok.

mtgx• 13 years ago

Are we really going to enter an era of "seed piracy"? And not because farmers everywhere would intentionally steal Monsanto's seeds, but because the laws would change in such a way that almost everyone else' seeds would be considered "pirated" versions of Monsanto's seeds.

Maybe we'll even get some kind of seed DMCA in the future. If Monsanto accuses someone of pirating, the government would just seize those crops. No trial necessary.

Ygg2• 13 years ago

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Your message seem like its coming from 15 minutes into the future.

CaptainZapp6• 13 years ago

This is exactly the reason why I strongly oppose GM food.

It's not that I'm scared about the consequences (the jury's still out on that).

But, do you really want to hand the keys for our nutrition to the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta and their ilk?

penny50032• 13 years ago

Why not? Their seeds and their competitors' are shown to be perfectly safe by the FDA, and the National Academy of Sciences and American Medical Association vouch for their seeds.

CaptainZapp6• 13 years ago

Please reread what I wrote.

My concerns are not about the safety, but about the patent ability of our food supply by private companies.

marquis• 13 years ago

It's not about safety, it's about ownership. This quote from the Judge: "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" - the part about "anyone could grow more and have as many seeds as they want" pretty much sums up farming as we've known it since agriculture began.

Edit: yes, I'm aware of that most farmers don't actually store their own seed for next year for efficiency of another farmer/company providing high-quality seeds yearly for them, however this is not justifying Monsanto's methods. There must be limits on food patents. I simply don't believe Monsanto cannot recover costs on the first-sale of seeds.

stagas13• 13 years ago

And we all know how trustworthy and corruptless these organizations are. Their word is like gospel.

jayfuerstenberg12• 13 years ago

The FDA and Monsanto run a revolving door system. Just about everybody knows this.

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/monsanto.html

http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

The tests the FDA conducts have come under criticism for not being long enough for any bad effects to be noticed, among other flaws.

http://rense.com/general59/cchm.htm

jrs2352• 13 years ago

Logical flaw and conclusion. I believe you mean the FDA hasn't found any studies to show they are not safe. My statement and your statement are very very different.

the_gipsy• 13 years ago

The problem is not GM food, it's patenting DNA.

DigitalJack• 13 years ago

Seems very analogous to software, excepting that DNA is naturally occuring organizing in addition to man made organization.

Blahah9• 13 years ago

This is misinformed.

Firstly, Monsanto, Syngenta, and their ilk have dominated the world seed market since the 1950s. GM food is completely independent of them. Monsanto may be the largest US producer of GM seed today, but the next generation of GM plants that are being worked on are designed to solve a wide range of humanitarian problems. Please, don't make your mind up about a technology with myriad potentially life-saving uses based on one company's commercial implementation. They don't define plant science.

Secondly, the jury is emphatically not still out on the consequences. As with climat change, in the independent scientific literature there is an overwhelming consensus that the technology itself is fundamentally safe, that each new implementation must be assessed separately, and that the risks in general are lower than those for conventionally bred crops.

michaelbuddy4• 13 years ago

"Solve a wide range of humanitarian problems..." which also has the side effect of them monopolizing developing countries. Don't kid yourself. Their unethical corporate behavior is well documented. It's companies like them that if they start losing money to organics, then they worm their way in to change the meaning of organic on food labels. It's pathetic and they deserve all the criticism they get.

jayfuerstenberg12• 13 years ago

AVAAZ is hosting a petition against Monsanto's attempt to patent food in Europe right now: http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_loc/?cwqgMd...

If you care about the health of everybody's food and the environment in general please sign it.

kokey• 13 years ago

Patents on seeds and breeds have been around for many decades before Monsanto came to the party. Farmers tend not to replant seeds for a very long time now, not only to avoid patent disputes but also to ensure consistency of crops. It's only become viable now to DNA test seeds and breeds to protect these patents.

stagas13• 13 years ago

Can we identify the products on the shelves that are of Monsanto origin and have a list posted somewhere so we can boycott them? I don't really feel like ever buying anything originated from that company.

maceo2• 13 years ago

This app makes it easy to do just that: http://buycott.com/campaign/211/demand-gmo-labeling

stagas13• 13 years ago

That's a good cause but will take ages before all nations adopt it, if they ever get everyone to agree. I was hoping for something I can start using right away.

TOGoS• 13 years ago

"It would be near impossible to recoup your investments with that first sale, and so the more likely consequence is that research dollars would be put elsewhere,"

Great! Fuck Monsanto's investments and their fucking poison.

Joe-Z• 13 years ago

I don't get this either. Also from the article:

"Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?"

If the flaws in their business model are so obvious (i.e. farmers can reuse their product once they bought it), why don't they try to improve their business model instead of threatening farmers with lawsuits and trying to regulate the food industry?

seanalltogether• 13 years ago

If monsanto holds the patent on the pesticide, why do they need a patent on the seed as well? Isn't it in the best interest to proliferate the seed as much as possible to maximize the number of farmers who need the pesticide?

redblacktree2• 13 years ago

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

randomdata8• 13 years ago

Patents expire. Companies need to continue to innovate if they want to stay relevant.

The last Roundup-related patent expired, according to Wikipedia, in 2000. Even the Roundup Ready 1 modified seed patent expires next year.

OGinparadise• 13 years ago

"Monsanto: All Your Seeds Are Belong to Us"

Mother Jones: All Articles Written by Us Are Belong to Us

I understand the impact on farmers and that Monsanto plays dirty, but this is their invention, you do not have to use their seeds. If you do, however, you must play by their rules. I understand that the lawsuit is different (planted someone else's seeds) but that person also violated his agreement.

"They want the farmers to take all the risks associated with farming, yet they want to control how they use those seeds all the way down the distribution chain,"

So it's an unfair agreement. Don't enter it.

makomk2• 13 years ago

The point is that you do have to use their seeds. Previously you could get seeds from other sources or even replant your own seeds, but Monsanto have been suing seed cleaning firms and people who buy seeds elsewhere, which means that even if you don't want Roundup Ready seeds you have to buy them from Monsanto.

LatvjuAvs• 13 years ago

And people are happy when you pour more poison on plants and they are fine :D

cageface• 13 years ago

I live in Vietnam and almost every day I see the heartbreaking consequences of Monsanto's involvement in the dioxin poisoning of this country. As far as I'm concerned this company should be liquidated and the proceeds distributed to the people still suffering every day as a result.

Putting the future of agriculture in the hands of a company this immoral is simply insane.

Monsanto: All Your Seeds Are Belong to Us

Related Stories