# Seed reuse and GM pollen pollution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347 "2011-09-06T02:55:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/1 "2011-09-06T02:55:36Z")
It’s illegal to save seeds from GM plants and reuse them, at least according to patent law. However living things don’t have a concept of patents and breed shamelessly. Say two farmers living near each other grow corn. One switches to genetically modified corn, the other uses a heritage variety and saves some of his crop to plant next year. Some of the GM pollen, through no fault of his own, gets in the heritage farmer’s crop. Since his crop now violates patent law (carrying patented genes); should he be required to destroy it? How about assessed a fine for patent violation? How about seeds costs; should the heritage farmer now be required to bear the extra cost of new seeds? I submit that this is a troubling problem with patenting living things. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/2 "2011-09-08T00:58:33Z")
Courts have already found that accidental contamination does not constitute infringement, and now there is [a group of farmers suing Monsanto](http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/30/us-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gmo-patents-demand-right-to-conventional-crops/)to establish that they can sue for damages if the genetically modified seeds ruin, for example, a certified organic crop. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/3 "2011-09-08T01:10:40Z")
There is no grounds for the GM developer to sue a third party for having their crop corrupted by their product. It’s about on the level of suing people for inhaling second-hand smoke. _At worst_ they could try to sue the person they sold the seeds to but even then, I doubt the effort required to quarantine an entire farm would be considered a reasonable demand. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/4 "2011-09-08T02:51:52Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > It’s illegal to save seeds from GM plants and reuse them, at least according to patent law. > > However living things don’t have a concept of patents and breed shamelessly. > Say two farmers living near each other grow corn. One switches to genetically modified corn, the other uses a heritage variety and saves some of his crop to plant next year. > Some of the GM pollen, through no fault of his own, gets in the heritage farmer’s crop. Since his crop now violates patent law (carrying patented genes); should he be required to destroy it? How about assessed a fine for patent violation? > > How about seeds costs; should the heritage farmer now be required to bear the extra cost of new seeds? > I submit that this is a troubling problem with patenting living things. I submit that there are undoubtedly problems with patenting living things, but this example doesn’t demonstrate them. No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having genetically modified crops on his land. And Monsanto has the technology to insert a gene that renders [second generation plants sterile](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5723765.PN.&OS=PN/5723765&RS=PN/5723765): > [@](#): > > 1. A method for producing seed that is incapable of germination, comprising > > stably transforming a plant cell with a first DNA sequence comprising a lethal gene and a promotor that is active in late embryogenesis, the lethal gene and the late embryogenesis promotor being in functional relation to one another, but separated by a blocking sequence that is flanked by specific excision sequences, such that the presence of the blocking sequence prevents the expression of the lethal gene, a second DNA sequence comprising a gene that encodes a recombinase specific for the specific excision sequences flanking the blocking sequence of the first DNA sequence, and a repressible promotor linked in functional relation to the specific recombinase gene, and a third DNA sequence comprising a gene that encodes a repressor specific for the repressible promotor of the second DNA sequence, third sequence being linked to a plant-active promoter; > > regenerating a whole plant from the plant cell; > > allowing the regenerated whole plant to produce a first generation seed; > > exposing the first generation seed to a stimulus that blocks the function of the repressor, such that the repressor element no longer inhibits expression of the specific recombinase gene, thereby allowing expression of the specific recombinase and excision of the blocking sequence of the first DNA sequence at the specific excision sequences, resulting in the direct functional linkage of the late embryogenesis promotor with the lethal gene; > > germinating the first generation seed to produce a first generation plant expressing the late embryogenesis promotor/lethal gene sequence; > > allowing the plant to produce second generation seed, whereby in the course of embryogenesis, the late embryogenesis promotor becomes active, permitting expression of the lethal gene in the second generation seed, thereby rendering the second generation seed incapable of germination. But although it would solve the problem you identify, I’ll go out on a limb and guess you’re opposed to commercial use of that solution. Right? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/5 "2011-09-08T03:14:39Z")
[http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm](http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm) Percy Schmeiser of Canada went to court to fight Monsanto he risked his farm, his savings and his retirement in court costs. He won after more than 3 years. Three years of fighting a powerful corporation is a severe penalty. many who did not fight just gave up. Monsanto insisted that it did not matter how the seeds got on someones land. It was their property. If it mingled with his plants. The new plants were also their property. Schmeiser spent over 40 years developing his own seeds and plants. He was absolutely hating the pollution of Monsanto seeds. He won, but he got hurt plenty. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/6 "2011-09-08T04:06:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I submit that there are undoubtedly problems with patenting living things, but this example doesn’t demonstrate them. > > No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having genetically modified crops on his land. > > And Monsanto has the technology to insert a gene that renders [second generation plants sterile](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5723765.PN.&OS=PN/5723765&RS=PN/5723765): > > But although it would solve the problem you identify, I’ll go out on a limb and guess you’re opposed to commercial use of that solution. Right? They have sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, they file suit against the people who own the seed washers, without that equipment farmers can not save seed. They even claim so, of course most farmers do not have the money to fight. [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/7 "2011-09-08T04:16:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But although it would solve the problem you identify, I’ll go out on a limb and guess you’re opposed to commercial use of that solution. Right? That would solve the problem, but wouldn’t it cause the reverse problem? Which is to say, I’m a farmer who doesn’t grow GM crops, next to one who does. His plants accidentally pollinate mine, and now my seed corn is ruined? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/8 "2011-09-08T04:24:36Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > That would solve the problem, but wouldn’t it cause the reverse problem? Which is to say, I’m a farmer who doesn’t grow GM crops, next to one who does. His plants accidentally pollinate mine, and now my seed corn is ruined? Not ruined. It belongs to Monsanto. At least that was their claim. Lots of farmers without the money or guts to fight Monsanto lost plenty. But since they gave up without a court fight, they apparently were not penalized. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/9 "2011-09-08T04:34:59Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Not ruined. It belongs to Monsanto. At least that was their claim. **Captain Amazing** wasn’t talking about a possible (stupid) legal decision. He’s talking about what amounts to GM developers attacking neighboring farms with the [sterile insect technique](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/10 "2011-09-09T03:56:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I submit that there are undoubtedly problems with patenting living things, but this example doesn’t demonstrate them. > > No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having genetically modified crops on his land. Defined penalized. Would you count a lawsuit with costs overs $100,000 being penalized? [http://www.producer.com/News/Archive-Article.aspx?aid=185731](http://www.producer.com/News/Archive-Article.aspx?aid=185731) > [@](#): > > Monsanto argued that even though it believes Schmeiser knowingly obtained Roundup Ready canola from someone, legally it doesn’t really matter. If Schmeiser’s crop contains the gene, it has broken Monsanto’s patent no matter how it got there or whether he knew it was there. > > “Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not … matters not at all,” said Roger Hughes. Roger Hughes being Monsanto’s lawyer. The defendant was triumphant. However Monsanto clearly is okay with suing innocent people, unless you’d like to argue Monsanto would have someone lie about their position to the courts. > [@](#): > > And Monsanto has the technology to insert a gene that renders [second generation plants sterile](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5723765.PN.&OS=PN/5723765&RS=PN/5723765): > > But although it would solve the problem you identify, I’ll go out on a limb and guess you’re opposed to commercial use of that solution. Right? Surely pollen that could render nearby fields sterile shows no potential problems to you, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/11 "2011-09-09T04:47:34Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > They have sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, they file suit against the people who own the seed washers, without that equipment farmers can not save seed. > > They even claim so, of course most farmers do not have the money to fight. > > [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx) So? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/12 "2011-09-09T05:02:55Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Defined penalized. Would you count a lawsuit with costs overs $100,000 being penalized? > > [http://www.producer.com/News/Archive-Article.aspx?aid=185731](http://www.producer.com/News/Archive-Article.aspx?aid=185731) > Roger Hughes being Monsanto’s lawyer. The defendant was triumphant. However Monsanto clearly is okay with suing innocent people, unless you’d like to argue Monsanto would have someone lie about their position to the courts. Innocent? The judge found that Schmeiser knew he was planting Monsanto seed, or that any reasonable person would have known he was. Schmeiser was not innocent – he deliberately saved out and planted Monsanto seed. In what way was he innocent? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/13 "2011-09-09T05:14:39Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm](http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm) Percy Schmeiser of Canada went to court to fight Monsanto he risked his farm, his savings and his retirement in court costs. He won after more than 3 years. Three years of fighting a powerful corporation is a severe penalty. many who did not fight just gave up. > Monsanto insisted that it did not matter how the seeds got on someones land. It was their property. If it mingled with his plants. The new plants were also their property. > Schmeiser spent over 40 years developing his own seeds and plants. He was absolutely hating the pollution of Monsanto seeds. > He won, but he got hurt plenty. None of this jibes with the facts stated in the court decision. In the years following the adoption of RR canola by his neighbours, Schmeiser was out spraying Roundup around power poles and noticed that the volunteer canola in those spots didn’t die - so he saved the seed from that part of that field, and the following year seeded it and sprayed the crop with Roundup. This resulted in him having pretty much straight RR canola. His actions make no sense whatsoever unless he knew exactly what he was doing. One does not spray any non-GM crop with Roundup, as you’ll kill the entire crop. [The appeals court decision](http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html) He didn’t win in court. Monsanto’s patent was upheld, and he was found to have infringed it. I believe on appeal the damages were reduced to nothing, but that’s not the same as winning. He’s also full of shit with regards to developing his own strain of canola. Canola as such has only been around since the late 70’s, only 25 years prior to the case. Prior to that there were only the old non-edible rapeseed cultivars, and he sure as hell didn’t duplicate the efforts of the University of Saskatchewan in breeding the erucic acid out of rapeseed. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/14 "2011-09-09T05:35:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm](http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm) Percy Schmeiser of Canada went to court to fight Monsanto… No, he didn’t. He was taken to court by Monsanto for stealing their property. > [@](#): > > …he risked his farm, his savings and his retirement in court costs. Yes, criminals often incur such risks. > [@](#): > > He won after more than 3 years. WTF??? 😕 **No, he did not win.** From your own article: The judge “upheld the validity of Monsanto’s patented gene” The judge "dismissed Schmeiser’s challenge to the patent based on the claim Monsanto could not control how the gene was dispersed " The judge ruled that it “is not true in the case of genetically modified seed… that a farmer owns the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen”. The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently rejected Schmeiser’s appeal. The Supreme Court… determined that Monsanto’s patent is valid. And that is the version told by Schmeiser himself. The [unbiased version](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser) is even more definite that Schmeiser lost resoundingly on all points: Schmeiser sued Monsanto for ten million dollars for “libel, trespass, and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready Canola”. However, that suit went nowhere. “a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found in favor of Monsanto of their patent being valid and if there was infringement.” “the Superme Court ruled …Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year” In no possible sense did Schemiser won. Every single court in the country handed him an arse kicking., Every single court found that he deliberately stole Monsato’s property, and then set out to deliberately plant a crop of GM canola derived from this deliberately stolen property. The most generous finding in Schmeiser’s favour was the initial verdict, which said the he either or should have known that what he was doing was highly illegal. IOW that court found that Schmeiser was either a fool or a thief. Every subsequent court rejected the fool possibility. The outright declared that Shmeiser deliberately stole Monsanto’s property. And you consider this to be winning? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Three years of fighting a powerful corporation is a severe penalty. many who did not fight just gave up. And Schmeiser did fight, and was found guilty and liable in every single court in the country. So as a matter of law, Shmeiser deliberately tired to steal Monsanto’s property and deliberately tired to cultivate GM crops. Not really relevant to the OP is it? > [@](#): > > Monsanto insisted that it did not matter how the seeds got on someones land. It was their property. If it mingled with his plants. The new plants were also their property. Nope, they never insisted on any such thing. The insisted that when someone deliberately and purposefully uses their patented technology to cultivate a patented GM crop, as Schmeiser diod, then that perosn is gulty of deliberately and purposefully breaching the patent on that technology. Do you disagree with this assertion? Because every court in the country agrees with it and found that Schmeiser did exactly that. > [@](#): > > Schmeiser spent over 40 years developing his own seeds and plants. He was absolutely hating the pollution of Monsanto seeds. What aload of horseshit. As He won, but he got hurt plenty. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/15 "2011-09-09T05:44:33Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm](http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm) Percy Schmeiser of Canada went to court to fight Monsanto… No, he didn’t. He was taken to court by Monsanto for stealing their property. > [@](#): > > …he risked his farm, his savings and his retirement in court costs. Yes, criminals often incur such risks. > [@](#): > > He won after more than 3 years. WTF??? 😕 **No, he did not win.** From your own article: The judge “upheld the validity of Monsanto’s patented gene” The judge "dismissed Schmeiser’s challenge to the patent based on the claim Monsanto could not control how the gene was dispersed " The judge ruled that it “is not true in the case of genetically modified seed… that a farmer owns the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen”. “The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently rejected Schmeiser’s appeal.” “The Supreme Court… determined that Monsanto’s patent is valid.” And that is the version told by Schmeiser himself. The [unbiased version](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser) is even more definite that Schmeiser lost resoundingly on all points: Schmeiser sued Monsanto for ten million dollars for “libel, trespass, and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready Canola”. However, that suit went nowhere. “a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found in favor of Monsanto of their patent being valid and if there was infringement.” “the Superme Court ruled …Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year” In no possible sense did Schemiser won. Every single court in the country handed him an arse kicking., Every single court found that he deliberately stole Monsato’s property, and then set out to deliberately plant a crop of GM canola derived from this deliberately stolen property. The most generous finding in Schmeiser’s favour was the initial verdict, which said the he either knew or should have known that what he was doing was intellectual property theft. IOW that court found that Schmeiser was either a fool or a thief. Every subsequent court rejected the fool possibility. They outright declared that Shmeiser deliberately stole Monsanto’s property. And you consider this to be winning? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Three years of fighting a powerful corporation is a severe penalty. many who did not fight just gave up. And Schmeiser did fight, and was found guilty and liable in every single court in the country. So as a matter of law, Shmeiser deliberately tired to steal Monsanto’s property and deliberately tired to cultivate GM crops. Not really relevant to the OP is it? > [@](#): > > Monsanto insisted that it did not matter how the seeds got on someones land. It was their property. If it mingled with his plants. The new plants were also their property. Nope, they never insisted on any such thing. The insisted that when someone deliberately and purposefully uses their patented technology to cultivate a patented GM crop, as Schmeiser diod, then that perosn is gulty of deliberately and purposefully breaching the patent on that technology. Do you disagree with this assertion? Because every court in the country agrees with it and found that Schmeiser did exactly that. > [@](#): > > Schmeiser spent over 40 years developing his own seeds and plants. He was absolutely hating the pollution of Monsanto seeds. What a load of ignorant horseshit. 3 juries and 4 appeals courts all found exactly the opposite. They all found that Shmeiser had deliberately and persistently attempted to cultivate Monsanto’s GM plants in order to establish a GM crop. Schmieser did not spend 40 years developing his own seeds. He spent 3 years selecting for Monsato’s seeds. This is a fact upheld by every court in the land. Schmeiser did not hate the pollution of Monsanto’s seeds. Schmeiser either illegally and directly stole some of Monsanto;'s seed, or spent considerable effort replicating Monsanto’s patented process for producing GM seeds. This is a fact upheld by every court in the land. > [@](#): > > He won, but he got hurt plenty. He did not win. He lost. In every single court in the land he lost. Every single court in the land found him guilty of willfully and deliberately replicating Monsanto’s patented technology In absolutely no sense did Schmeiser win. The man was found by every single court to be a fraud, a liar, a thief and a cheat. **gonzomax** ,please stop posting such ignorant tripe in GD. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/16 "2011-09-09T06:06:27Z")
Anyway, ignoring **gonzomax** ’s ignorant tripe, and getting back to the OP. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > It’s illegal to save seeds from GM plants and reuse them, at least according to patent law. No, that’s not illegal at all. GM seed is usually sold under a contract that states that any harvested seed must be destroyed, milled or sold back to the provider. If you won’t sign that contract, they won’t sell you the seed. If you do sign that contract, and then break it, you open yourself up to lawsuit, but it has nothing at all to do with patent law. Patent law only applies where somebody deliberately and knowingly replicates a patent. The patent on GM seed is for the genetic material insertion and selection process. So long as you don’t replicate that process in any way, and you haven’t signed a contract to the contrary, you are free to save and re-use any seeds that you like. > [@](#): > > Some of the GM pollen, through no fault of his own, gets in the heritage farmer’s crop. Since his crop now violates patent law (carrying patented genes).. That doesn’t break patent law, as already described. > [@](#): > > … should he be required to destroy it? How about assessed a fine for patent violation? Since he hasn’t broken either patent law or any contract, the answer is “no”. > [@](#): > > How about seeds costs; should the heritage farmer now be required to bear the extra cost of new seeds? No, of course not. Any more than if someone 100 years ago had sown Sweet Peppers and the crop had become contaminated with Hot Pepper pollen from a neighbour’s crop. These things have always happened and no liability has ever attached. Why should it be any different for GM varieties? If a farmer doesn’t want pollen contamination, then it is up to him to take precautions, not his neighbour. > [@](#): > > I submit that this is a troubling problem with patenting living things. I fail to see why it is any more of a problem with patented organisms than with any other organisms. Can you explain why contamination of sweet pepper with hot pepper is less of a problem than contamination of “Variety X” with “GM Variety Y”? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/17 "2011-09-09T07:30:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So? Your original claim is false, Monsanto uses thugs, intimidation and force and several innocent farmers have been destroyed without willful violation of the patent. Just look for the suits they have had to drop, many people settle just because they do not have the resources to fight. Full disclosure, I actually am for the use of RR crops as Glyphosate tends to leach less than the alliterative herbicides. But I will not pretend that Monsanto is a friendly vendor. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/18 "2011-09-09T09:42:29Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Monsanto uses thugs, intimidation and force and several innocent farmers have been destroyed without willful violation of the patent. Can we see some evidence for this claim? > [@](#): > > Just look for the suits they have had to drop, many people settle just because they do not have the resources to fight. Can we see some evidence for this claim? According to the link you posted “In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in [Monsanto’s] favor.” This seems to flatly contradict your claim that any f these people were innocent farmers. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/19 "2011-09-09T09:45:37Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Surely pollen that could render nearby fields sterile shows no potential problems to you, right? No, I can’t see any problems with that, and I’m an agricultural scientist. Can \*you \*explain what problems \*you \*think might exist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347/20 "2011-09-09T12:47:56Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Your original claim is false, Cite? > [@](#): > > Monsanto uses thugs, intimidation and force and several innocent farmers have been destroyed without willful violation of the patent. Cite? See, this is Great Debates. Unsupported assertions don’t fly. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seed-reuse-and-gm-pollen-pollution/595347.md?page=2)