Comment by wonderwonder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wonderwonder | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For a normal company one could believe this. But Monsanto is like the energy / coal companies in that they are deeply entrenched in politics via lobbyists and campaign contributions. It's very difficult to go to war with a company that has the support of the government and a virtually unlimited budget.

Even if they are sued and lose, the fine will most likely be a percentage point of their operating profits.

Essentially the drift is a positive for them. Neighboring crop fields are damaged. The farmers cannot afford to sue Monsanto or fear doing so, and their only recourse is to switch over to Monsanto branded seeds next season.

Another interesting tactic is that if you plant a Monsanto crop for a season, you are not allowed to use any seeds generated by that crop to plant the next season, you have to purchase new seeds every season. [Edit: This next point was debunked] In addition if any seeds blow onto a neighbors farm and those seeds grow, that farmer can and will be sued by Monsanto for growing their IP.

The last point about seed blowing has been debunked. It is listed as myth number 2 here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...

I wouldn't say this is a conclusive debunking. According to your source from 2012:

> So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.

> But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination.

Another source [1] says, "its report, called Seed Giants vs US Farmers, the CFS said it had tracked numerous law suits that Monsanto had brought against farmers and found some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states."

I wonder how judiciously the NPR reporter reviewed these 142 patent infringement suits to discern whether none concerned small amounts of cross-contamination. Color me skeptical.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... (2013)

[2] Primary source: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_...

There was a court case brought by OSGATA against Monsanto. The lawyers for Osgata admitted that Monsanto never sued anyone for accidental contamination but their argument was that there was a chilling effect which discouraged their members from growing non conventional seed for fear of Monsanto suing them.

The case was thrown as it was ruled as Monsanto stated that they didn't intend to sue if you had trace amount of contamination.

https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-for-inadverten...

They sue for patent infringement when someone sprays Roundup on plants from seeds that they didn't pay royalties on, not just when someone grows contaminated seeds.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. There's lots of potential for biopatents to be harmful but there is also a pretty huge gray area.

I find it distrubing that some of the most widely used arguments against Monsanto can be myths. It makes me really question the information I get whether supportive/critical. That aside they are pretty evil.

I stand corrected

Would this also salt the earth for switching away from Montesanto seeds for a few years while reminant chemicals remain?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com