Organic growers lose decision in suit versus Monsanto over seeds

reply to post by alfa1


Hear Hear!

I thought upon reading this that the court cannot rule upon something that may "potentially happen." I would assume this case was thrown out as frivolous.

This would be like me taking my neighbor to court to attempt to keep him for suing me for damages if I ever accidentally sent a rock through his window.

Originally posted by jssaylor2007

This would be like me taking my neighbor to court to attempt to keep him for suing me for damages if I ever accidentally sent a rock through his window.

edit on 11-6-2013 by jssaylor2007 because: (no reason given)

Analogy is a bit off.

Monsanto's genetically modified seeds cross-breed with many other crops, so the farmers are looking for insurance. Unfortunately, they went about it the wrong way, since not one of the plantiff's had, or were being sued by Monsanto. Stupid move actually.

Here is some additional information on Monsanto and how many farmers they actually bully per yer, as opposed to the number of case filed against them. Monsanto are extortionist's in a way, that they know just how far to push the letter of the law, and extort money, protect themselves from liability, and gain future seed buying slaves buy Slapp Suits, then settle out of court and look like the good guys.

It's a twisted game that complacent, or ill funded farmers do not have the intestinal fortitude to play out. Monsanto know's this.

reply to post by Realtruth


You really have no idea how farmers grow food, do you?

I actually was talking to a farmer's daughter the other day.... (oh god that sounds funny, but I'm not joking)
I learned a lot about how it works with Monsanto products.

First off, cross breeding is not an issue. They buy new seeds each year. Where'd you pull that cross breeding thing from? The odds of it happening to a significant portion of a crop is very low.

Second, they are Monsanto's seeds. If farmer's want to use them, they need to play by the rules established.

I love how people on ATS are so quick to form opinions, when they have no idea of the details....

This is absolutely nothing to be upset about if you know what's going on...

But you all hear monsanto and you spaz.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Realtruth

 

You really have no idea how farmers grow food, do you?

I actually was talking to a farmer's daughter the other day.... (oh god that sounds funny, but I'm not joking)
I learned a lot about how it works with Monsanto products.

Farmers daughter?

Actually, I have 300 acres of farm here in Michigan. 30 of which has 2500 fruit trees and 40 bee hive.

I have 200 acres of tillable land that produces everything from sugar beats to soy beans, so believe me I know how monsanto works.

The reason many farmers use Monsanto seed and roundup ready growing is because it requires a lot less care then organic farming which takes more time, care, and of course money, so farmers sign contracts with Monsanto to grow and buy their products only.

The problem comes when farmers that have side-by-side plots or land use and plant the same crops, with no buffer or fence, and one farmer is strictly organic and doesn't subscribe to Monsanto. Cross pollination does happen.

Just because a seed is not heirloom doesn't mean its genetic traits, which in monsanto's case are patented do get passed on by cross pollination. There are plenty of caselaw here in the USA and Canada to prove it.

thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com...

Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled

The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:

·It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.

·The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it’s 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to Monsanto.

·It’s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.

Next time you talk to the farmers daughter that knows about Monsanto tell her I said hello.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled

The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:

·It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.

LIE ALERT !!!!!

As I mentioned on the previous page, if one actually takes the time to go and READ THE COURT DECISION rather than take the second hand word of a website, you will see the situation is 100 percent the opposite of what Realtruth just posted.

Since he didnt read it the last time, I'll quote the Judge's words yet again:

For the defendants it is urged Monsanto has no property interest in its gene... Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.

If you disagree with what I've just posted, and wish to support Realtruth's assertion, I double dare you to find the Judge's words in the court decision I just linked to.

reply to post by Realtruth


I have access to a multitude of legal libraries and data-bases. I cannot find a case where the facts are similar to this and the courts have ruled in the favour of the party in Monsanto's position.

In relation to the legal costs which could, as you say, bankrupt a small farmer, the court would likely settle that Monsanto would have to pay the majority of the successful parties legal costs.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Organic growers lose decision in suit versus Monsanto over seeds

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - Monsanto Co. on Monday won another round in a legal battle with U.S. organic growers as an appeals court threw out the growers' efforts to stop the company from suing farmers if traces of its patented biotech genes are found in crops.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous ruling that found organic growers had no reason to try to block Monsanto from suing them as the company had pledged it would not take them to court if biotech crops accidentally mix in with organics.

In its ruling Monday, the appellate court said the organic growers must rely on Monsanto assurances on the company's website that it will not sue them so long as the mix is very slight.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 10-6-2013 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

What?

Should be about organic farmers suing Monsanto over contaminating and effectively destroying their ability to claim an organic product to sell, rather than Monsanto making 'assurances' to organic farmers that monsanto won't sue for contaminating their crops with damaging GMO crap?

That's like me pissing over a farmers market stall of vegetables and saying "it's all right Mr. Farmer i won't sue you because i pissed all over your produce and now you can't sell it"!

This world is getting worse day by day.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Realtruth

 

You really have no idea how farmers grow food, do you?

I actually was talking to a farmer's daughter the other day.... (oh god that sounds funny, but I'm not joking)
I learned a lot about how it works with Monsanto products.

First off, cross breeding is not an issue. They buy new seeds each year. Where'd you pull that cross breeding thing from? The odds of it happening to a significant portion of a crop is very low.

Second, they are Monsanto's seeds. If farmer's want to use them, they need to play by the rules established.

I love how people on ATS are so quick to form opinions, when they have no idea of the details....

This is absolutely nothing to be upset about if you know what's going on...

But you all hear monsanto and you spaz.

I see you do not understand that all Maize in the world has now been , contaminated by Monsanto et. al. RR and other Genetics. Even in the remote mountains of Mexico, where "Corn" as we know it, originated.

This wholesale contamination by patented genetics, have now created a situation where, if Monsanto chooses to do so, can sue a Mayan Indian for having those genetics in his cornfield. So I think you had better get a "primer" on pollen drift and contamination in the world, by modified seed. Of course the patent on RR1 runs out next year, so anyone can then hold back seed corn, or seed beans even though it carries that trait.

The problem is that seed companies in the US are not selling RR1 seed next year, and are attempting to bastardize seed with off the wall patents in order to maintain their customer base and continue the tech fees that have been paid to Monsanto over the life of the expiring patent. So . . . you are off the ranch on this one! Adios Amigo. John

reply to post by Faust100f


I find it hard to believe that "all" corn is contaminated with Monsanto's genes. You guys just keep proving the point that you really have no idea what's going on and just came running cause someone spoke of the boogeyman Monsanto.

reply to post by Realtruth
I found this remarkably interesting: "Senator seeks to overturn so-called Monsanto Protection Act" (www.nydailynews.com...) There are other (solvable) issues besides worrying about seeds. Worry and guilt are the two most useless emotions; they waste a lot of time and energy and don't accomplish a thing.

At this point I can't help but think most Senators & Reps are threatened and/or paid off for their votes--but I'm sure many of you feel the same way. The best way to fight Monsanto is to NOT buy their products. That's what happened in Europe and it seemed to work. Find a local farmer and organic food source and be loyal. Local growers are usually much cheaper than Wal-Mart GMO/Round-up produce anyway.

I don't believe organic growers suing Monsanto(or us suing organic growers) is the answer: us eating Monsanto food is. I'm sure it would help tremendously if the USGov would stop hiring former Monsanto executives--and vice-versa--but the USGov is incredibly corrupt, so that's kind of a moot point.

This article might also be of interest: "Monsanto hires infamous mercenary firm Blackwater to track activists around the world" (www.naturalnews.com...)--Monsanto wants to collect 'intelligence on anti-Monsanto activists' and infiltrate their ranks. WTF? Getting super tired of grown men treating the world like a high school. Well, if the high school had access to automatic weapons, super-computers and nukes--hmm...can you say dictatorship?? Apparently Blackwater has offered it's services & security training to Royal Caribbean Cruises and DISNEY!

--->So let's not frequent businesses or consume products that have hired Blackwater. That would help too.

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
reply to post by Faust100f

 

I find it hard to believe that "all" corn is contaminated with Monsanto's genes. You guys just keep proving the point that you really have no idea what's going on and just came running cause someone spoke of the boogeyman Monsanto.

---90% of the corn in American IS Monsanto GMO garbage.

And yes, when things go bump in the night I look under my bed for Monsanto GMO monsters.

reply to post by EFHerne


He wasn't speaking of just corn in America though, he was speaking of all corn worldwide.

When President Reagan became President he found the country was broke.

To fix the problem, and buy more time....he created Federal Trust Funds for each Federal Agency and put a little money in them and said "go out and invest it to have something to operate off of".

And that's when the real evil started.

Who owns Monsanto...the Federal Trust Funds investing in them. They create something they can patent....use it to generate $$$$ for the Federal Agencies.

They don't care if they shut down small farmers...or even poison the entire world. Both are Revenue Generating Ventures.

Look at the Pentagons Retired Military Trust Fund....all by itself she can pay alllll the nations retired military for 12+ years.....no Congressional Appropriations required. That Trust Fund's been growing by leaps and bounds the last few years.

Ronnie Reagan destroyed the World.....in the end it will be his created Trust Funds that will be responsible for destroying our entire planet...civilization....our species.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by jrod
Monsanto has sued farmers and have taken farms watch Food Inc.

I do not have time to link you actual cases where Monsanto won against a small farm, they are out there.

Yes they are out there.
Yes this has happened.
BUT these are not examples of "wind blown contamination" that this specific court case is about.
Even the organic growers could not put forward any such example in court. Read the pdf file from my previous post.

Originally posted by jrod
You sound like a disInfo agent attempting damage control on Monsanto's behalf.

As I've said before

Oh, the classic old "ad hominem" argument surfaces.
Its much like Godwins laws, but for GMO discussions.

"As an online GMO discussion grows longer, the probability somebody being told they must work for Monsanto approaches 1."

"As an online GMO discussion grows longer, the probability somebody being told they must work for Monsanto and being correct approaches 1."

Originally posted by HerbalJunkie
Wow looks like a bunch of "M" supporters here, lol

It almost contradicts the ATS them and members against large corporation.

could these guys be shills for "M"?

Well if so they are earning their pay derailing and cause confusion.

What's wrong... couldn't think of anything original and constructive to add to the conversation?

Originally posted by Maskander

"As an online GMO discussion grows longer, the probability somebody being told they must work for Monsanto and being correct approaches 1."


Well, let me declare it again for a second time, as I did some days ago.
I quit my job a few weeks back, and at this point are unemployed, sitting at home all day watching DVD's, surfing the internet and visiting family. My opinions are my own.
Never at any time have I ever (or in the foreseeable future) worked for Monsanto or any other agricultural or GMO related company.

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost

Originally posted by HerbalJunkie
Wow looks like a bunch of "M" supporters here, lol

It almost contradicts the ATS them and members against large corporation.

could these guys be shills for "M"?

Well if so they are earning their pay derailing and cause confusion.

What's wrong... couldn't think of anything original and constructive to add to the conversation?

All of your previous posts point to a Monsanto "Cheerleader". Are you giving yourself hive fives here on ATS too?

It's funny how so many of these account were created just recently and so many of there posts are Pro Monsanto.

Hope your getting paid well.

Anyhow here is a recent case of how Monsanto Bullies farmers, this one went all the way to a loss for farmer.

Most of Monsanto cases are settled before they go to court because of Monsanto's deep pockets and ability to bankrupt and financially ruin poor farmers, if they are settle they will not show up on legal searches due to court gag orders, per the settlement.

The ATS member claiming to not be able to find Monsanto cases is not looking via the computer, or Nexus Lexus. Lot of cases pop up in a search. lol

Monsanto is despicable and we can see they show the same malice here on ATS.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Monsanto Company, a producer of herbicide resistant soybean seeds and technology, sued Vernon Hugh Bowman, a soybean farmer, for patent infringement. Bowman replanted second-generation seeds, which were the product of seeds purchased from a licensed Monsanto technology distributor. Monsanto argued that by planting the product of Monsanto’s herbicide resistant seeds instead of purchasing new ones, Bowman was in violation of the Technology Agreement for the seeds. The Federal Circuit upheld a district court decision awarding Monsanto damages for violation of their patented technology, reasoning that Monsanto's herbicide resistant technology was covered by patent regardless of whether it was the original seed or a product of the original seeds. Bowman contends that Monsanto’s patent rights were exhausted once he bought the seeds and that use of progeny seeds is an expected use of the product. Monsanto responds that in the case of self-replicating technologies the patent extends to the technology, here, the trait of herbicide resistance, rather than the seed itself.

www.nationofchange.org...

Bowman spent $31,000 of his own money on legal fees before a law firm agreed to defend him for free. If Monsanto wins the case against him, he'll have to pay almost $85,000 to the corporation, which made $7 billion in profits in fiscal year 2012.