I'm not going to defend Monsanto's bad business practices, but I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory, so this is probably the best move over all.
The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.
Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
As might be expected, this rubs A LOT of people the wrong way.
Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.
Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.
Monsanto has provided a list of factual statements. If you don't trust them, you can fact-check them. You either are going to have proof that they are lying, or proof that they are telling the truth.
Refusing to accept what Monsanto says by virtue of them being Monsanto is, again, just another part of the anti-GMO hysteria...
"To conclude this series, I have found no evidence that farmers are sued by Monsanto for inadvertent contamination. The lawsuits that I examined were for cases where farmers knowingly and admittedly used Monsanto seeds without licensing contracts."
Of course, nobody has ever debunked this page, because there's nothing to debunk.
If it’s happened, then there should be some credible source detailing the case in which it happened. No such source exists.
Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?
I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.
> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
I found this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"
I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.
Many pro-copyright arguments are accompanied by "You don't need it, so if you don't like the [price, terms, DRM] just don't consume it."
This is dealing with actual food, which we most definitely do need, so people will understandably be a bit more motivated.
Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham. These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the US Constitution). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect... explains more in-depth.
The mere idea that you can license seeds is highly objectionable and seems very likely to be against the public interest. Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.
Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.
But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
>In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.
Fundamentally yes, some are also angered by the fact that current IP law / court rulings allow those types of agreements to be legal, and there's potentially an argument / opportunity to change the law to prohibit that type of agreement, but primarily it's just a BS move by a company that makes people mad. To your music point, many also consider it a BS move to prohibit saving the music you "buy" on iTunes to more than N devices. It's completely legal, and you definitely agreed to those terms when you bought it, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.
[0] However they may have gotten in hot water for that being considered anti-competitive via deals they signed with public schools. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/06/epipen-pric...
Using Round-Up ready seeds allows the use of Round-Up for weed control on your fields, but this can have negative affects on neighboring farms. For example on Field A, populated with Round-Up ready seeds, Round Up is used to control the weeds. However this same spray can affect neighboring field B, which is not populated by Round-Up Ready seeds, causing weeds and crop die or reduced yields... So basically if your neighbor is using Round-Up, you need to also, and your neighbor...etc. So now everyone is locked into Round-Up ready seeds they have to buy every year.
Farmers spraying their neighbours' fields could be a problem I guess. But its a problem that would pre-date GMOs. Farmers have been spraying their crops for hundreds of years? (well at least decades)
It seems the drifting argument is a interpretation on Dicamba issues.. Which could go either way: https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-lawsuits-mounting--naa...
An interesting fact, to be sure, since Terminator^TM technology hasn't been used in fields .. ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
Also interesting, Terminator was developed (primarily by the USDA) to address environmental concerns about potentially contaminating wild populations with transgenes. But of course, it's Monsanto (not actually, though) so it's evil!
You may be confused about hybrid seed, which is germplasm developed from particular parental lines to produce a unusually vigorous progeny. This 'hybrid vigor' only lasts one generation, though. Hybrid seed has been the rule since about the 1950s, well before transgenes, but don't let that pollute the narrative about GMO killing seed saving!
It's also interesting to mention overspray with regard to RoundUp; one of the major selling points for Glyphosate is that you don't need to apply much, and it doesn't persist long in the soil, both highly beneficial traits for eliminating overspray issues. That's not to say there aren't any concerns with Glyphosate, but as far as herbicides go, it's pretty tame. As a bonus, Glyphosate has enabled a huge rise in no-till agriculture, which is terrific for preserving fragile soils, reducing fossil fuel use, etc.
And the problem with this is that it's nothing more than a spurious hypothetical that never actually happened. Monsanto sued and won in cases where farmers were deliberately storing and replanting seeds in knowing violation of their agreement with Monsanto.
This is precisely the hysteria and conspiracy theory I am referring to.
Short answer: it's fake.
Longer answer: The farmers you reference intentionally stole seed, they never purchased it, and they indended to use and grow it. A farmer does not have a little seed blow in and magically entire field after field after field is perfectly planted. They stole, it is what it is.
This is precisely why they should change their name. Even here in a supposedly intellectual forum, vapid nonsense is passed off as fact.
P.S. had you visited Monsanto's wikipedia page, as you instruct others to, you would have been cured of your conspiracy. Here's your link, btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
" That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents"
"The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed. Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)"
AKA it's only an issue when a farmer intentionally replants entire fields of seeds and has nothing to do with "blowing seeds" or trace amounts or any accidents or acts of nature.
Oops!
In Canada, a similar incident occurred where a farmer had an incidental amount of Monsanto seed blow in, and then he isolated it from other varieties and reproduced his own copies of Monsanto seeds to fill all of his fields with his copies of their seeds, and again, he stole from them. He intentionally filled his fields with seeds he knew he wasn't supposed to have (or argued wrongly that he could have).
What I dont like is that they often get involved with politics trying to patent food/seeds.
If they want to do what apple companies do and brand their seeds, cool. Making food illegal to produce without approval is dangerous.
The problem of Roundup resistance and decreasing genetic diversity is a serious concern though.
Herbicides aren't the only solution for that problem. Some practices such a tilling, for example, churns up a bunch of weed seeds which exacerbates the problem (and others).
But this is not a problem unique to Monsanto, Roundup nor GMOs. If Monsanto was gone tomorrow, someone would just jump up in their place, different gene, different herbicide, same problem. Most people who work at Monsanto probably think they're doing something good for people. They're selling the most modern solution to an ancient problem and keeping the green revolution rolling. Are they aware about the concerns regarding their product? Probably, but just like most people they're a bit willfully ignorant of the consequences of how they earn their living.
In the end, I don't think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get on the fast train to fruit loop town with the no GMO, Monsanto is evil, "organic" only, all natural kool-aid drinkers. Having a standards body in place that makes sure this technology is applied responsibly is the best solution in my mind. Of course ensuring regulatory bodies aren't overtaken by zealots or shills is always a problem but I'm not sure what else to do.
Now, one has to be quite incompetent at spraying glyphosate to have significant blow over across the edges of fields: it's a very well behaved chemical in that regard. If you wanted to both make Monsanto look bad in this topic, you should forget about glyposate and think Dicamba. I won't bore HN with all the details, but even in Monsanto's new formulation, which supposedly makes the risk of hitting neighboring fields far lower, just picking a day where the weather isn't exactly right for the spray, or poor technique application, will lead to major damage in neighboring fields: The results might have been good in the lab, but they are not great in practice. It's arguably Monsanto's biggest piece of existential risk.
I don't know much about the Dicamba topic, but it looks like a nasty herbicide and Monsanto is producing GM seeds that are resistant to that, probably to overcome the natural resistance to glyphosate that pigweed developed. It seems like there is a lot of controversy around it. Care to comment more on that topic? I think there are some interested readers that you won't bore.
I know the software world has a strongly negative view of patents, because of their abuse within it, and I don't personally have the expertise to know whether GMO-patents make sense, but from the outside this kind of seems like a textbook case of how patents are supposed to work?
Someone makes something new (glyphosate-resistant crops) and is granted a limited monopoly in exchange for making their methods public, and after a short period, their methods go into the public domain. This limited monopoly yields a profit that encourages further research and development.
This doesn't seem like copyrights, which are effectively permanent monopolies, or software patents, which are granted for relatively un-novel "inventions" or behaviors, and then used against people who independently re-invent a similar method or behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Perhaps there's some merit to the idea that spending 10, 15, or 20 years developing a new breed should come with a temporary monopoly on said breed? Maybe it's absurd to think you have a sacred right to use newly developed varieties?
Oh, but our food! Well, anything that's more than 20 or 25 years old is perfectly legal for anyone to grow. That's how patents work. Picturesque notions of old-timey agriculture are unaffected.
Either everyone should have a monopoly or no one should.
Seeing how awful monopolies are for the world, no one should.
First to market + branding is a real thing. If a company is smart enough to develop something but cant figure out how to sell it for a profit, they arent that smart.
>I don't think I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory
I guess "bad business practices" are not real problems.
In fact they illustrate the fundamental ethical issues with technology: how is it going to be used?
Why not do your own research and decide?
True, I guess part of the reason is people here don't have the domain knowledge. Us programmers are only experts in our narrow fields. I take most comments here on agriculture/politics/patents/etc with a bit of humor. :^)