So when you said “go on”, what you really meant was “might start”?
Thanks for the clarification and an enjoyable article to read.
Suing farmers over patent rights sounds like a completely separate issue from the amendment’s coverage. I do hope it signals a change for more complete regulatory overhaul. The layers of approval required for something that is logically harmless amazes me.
no, you can search individual law suits of both types. I just can’t break down the numbers of each. I suspect the seed-reuse is the bulk of the lawsuits.
basically, the farmer has to prove their seeds were not the patented seeds which is difficult with cross pollination. Or so the story goes. I’m not a farmer or bio-engineer. It’s not like news organizations can be depended on to research anything properly.
[QUOTE=The Law]
the Secretary of Agriculture shall … immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, …
[/QUOTE]
IANAL, but have read commentaries (e.g. in Harper’s) claiming that reasonable-looking rules may, in fact, prevent regulation, e.g. when there is no limit on the appealing or reviewing process, or even when finite reviews are unwieldy.
Speaking only for myself, it is ecological concerns that worry me about Roundup Ready crops, etc., not their edibility. I suspect many would take that view but willingly take support from those concerned about edibility (though not I).
BTW, what was Obama’s position on the law? Did he sign it just as quid pro quo?
This reading of the newly passed regulation makes sense (to a non-lawyer, anyway). If there’s anything in the statute that prohibits federal court lawsuits from being filed over allegedly dangerous GM crops, I’m not seeing it.
It should be pointed out that the most notorious of these suits (which went to the Supreme Court, where the farmer lost), involved a farmer who deliberately purchased seed at a local grain elevator in an area where most farmers were planting Roundup-Ready crops. He reasoned that the seed would carry the Monsanto genetic characteristics (which it did) and got himself a Roundup-Ready field without paying the company for the product. It sued and won.
I am suspicious of Monsanto’s doings on general grounds, and one reason I am sick of the anti-GM crowd’s falsehoods and exaggerations is that it puts me in the position of seeming to defend this company. I would rather speak out in favor of projects like the introduction of golden rice (a vitamin A-enhanced GM variety whose planting in developing countries could save many lives and prevent blindness from vitamin A deficiency). Introduction has been long held up by attacks from anti-GM groups, who fear success of golden rice could pave the way for use of other GM technology (suffering people be damned).
Is it? The article states:
The Runyons were never sued. Monsanto did decide they were ineligible to buy their products; that is all.
No, Monsanto has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the farmer violated their agreement with Monsanto, or commercially used their seed without such an agreement.
Not on this issue, they certainly cannot.
It was in the continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown - since that section expires like everything else in 6 months or so, it certainly doesn’t seem like it was worth a veto, which would then have forced the House and Senate to either override or pass a new bill without that section.
Show your work, or STFU.
Here, to get you started:
Your turn.
Well, that’s a pretty hard response to what I would consider a pretty reasonable statement given the facts as I understand them.
Now of course, I’m just an insurance guy who focuses on civil law and policy language. The closest I ever get to agriculture is failing to grow a decent head of lettuce in my home garden in any given year. So maybe there is some evidence out there, which I don’t know about, that definiteively shows GMO crops are unsafe? Surely, given the amount of protest, there is widespread harm caused by these sorts of products that I’ve just missed for not being attuned to the situation. So…what’s unsafe about them? Proven unsafeness, not hypothetical.
Not much scientific analysis is really needed. If Greenpeace is weighing in on something, the odds are overwhelming that they are wrong. A blind squirrel still finds a nut every once in a while, but nobody ever lost their shirt betting against Greenpeace.
Monsanto seems determined to kill off the insect population of the entire world, including the bees. If they succeed, and a great hunger due to lack of pollinating insects occurred, we have the comfort of knowing they couldn’t be sued.
It is much to early to draw that conclusion, the USDOA Colony Collapse Disorder Steering Committee’s second report has stated:
In short: we don’t know yet. Jumping to conclusions won’t help anyone.
That’s not what this law does, at all.
Here’s a site that better explains what happened.
Why is this thread not titled “Republican controlled house attaches ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ rider to funding bill”
Actually, it doesn’t, because:
-
That article is about a different person (Vernon Bowman) than the other one (David and Dawn Runyon, with a mention of Mo Parr).
-
Your claim was:
That is not at all what happened with Bowman. From the article you linked to:
Bolding mine.
This was not a cross-pollination matter; Bowman and other local farmers signed an agreement when they bought the Monsanto seeds not to replant the seeds or sell them. So, Bowman bought seeds that other farmers had sold to the grain elevator with the understanding that they’d be used for feed or milling and not planting, and planted them. Per an interview with Bowman, he admits that the seed was labelled as not being for planting:
Did Bowman infringe the patent? That’s for the courts to decide (and they are, this case was argued before the Supreme Court last month). Is this a case of Monsanto going after a farmer who was a helpless victim of wind-blown cross-pollination? Unequivocally, no.
He signed it because Congress stuck it in a must-sign bill which prevented a government shutdown, funded food stamps and the Violence Against Women Act, and so forth. That’s how things work in a government of divided powers.
–Cliffy
Sorry, I didn’t post the cite to back up what I said, I posted it for detail. I should have stated that and didn’t out of lazyness. Bowman did try an end run around the agreement. I don’t like Monsanto’s methodology and subsequent monopoly on seed stock but that’s a different issue.
The only case I could find regarding cross contamination involved a Canadian farmer (Schmeiser). Although the farmer didn’t have to pay Monsanto for replanting cross contaminated seeds it was because he didn’t profit from the venture. He lost 50 years of plant breeding over this. It appears that cross contamination transfers the patent.
Your linked article does not mention Monsanto.
The major producers of neonicotinoid pesticides (which may be one of a number of factors in increasing bee deaths) are Bayer and Syngenta, not Monsanto.
But feel free to resume your Monsanto Is Eee-vil rant.