Why is Monsanto evil?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

I never quite got this. I keep hearing in conversations about GMOs how evil Monsanto is. Not because they produce GMOs, mind, but as evidence that the research on GMOs cannot be trusted. So… Why are they evil? I can never seem to get a straight answer. What has Monsanto done which is so deplorable and amoral?

[foolsguinea]

Monsanto has managed to patent genes for GMO corn and soybeans that are resistant to the herbicide it sells. So if you plant “their” seed—and it is legally all their seed—you can spray poison on your field to your heart’s content#151;so long as it’s RoundUp.

Now, their contract says you can’t save any of the seed your crops produce at the end of the season. You have to buy more Monsanto seed from Monsanto.

And here’s where a lot of farmers are spitting mad: If your neighbor uses Monsanto seed, it* will *pollinate your seed. So even though you never planted Monsanto seed, you can’t save any seed corn from your own non-Monsanto crop, because that seed is assumed to be legally Monsanto’s seed. It’s all Monsanto’s seed. Eventually, simple wind-pollination will spread their engineered genes (in varying proportions of incidence) throughout any continuous region of farmland, and everyone will have to buy seed from Monsanto every year until the patent falls into public domain. (And it’s not like they’re going to stop doing research and coming out with new patentable genes to use to stop farmers from saving seed.)

Monsanto wants to own everybody’s seed corn. (And beans.) It’s an awe-striking business model. Monsanto has managed to buy this privilege through political influence.

Also, the present level of RoundUp use is destroying milkweed stocks to the degree that the monarch butterfly is about to go extinct. That’s vile, too.

[Claverhouse]

A lot of people weren’t enthused with Agent Orange.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@foolsguinea

Monsanto has managed to patent genes for GMO corn and soybeans that are resistant to the herbicide it sells. So if you plant “their” seed—and it is legally all their seed—you can spray poison on your field to your heart’s content#151;so long as it’s RoundUp.

Now, their contract says you can’t save any of the seed your crops produce at the end of the season. You have to buy more Monsanto seed from Monsanto.

And here’s where a lot of farmers are spitting mad: If your neighbor uses Monsanto seed, it* will *pollinate your seed. So even though you never planted Monsanto seed, you can’t save any seed corn from your own non-Monsanto crop, because that seed is assumed to be legally Monsanto’s seed.

Okay, gonna have to stop you right there. Citation, please? From what I’ve heard, case law on things like Monsanto vs. Schmeisser is pretty clear that accidental cross-pollination does not constitute a violation of Monsanto’s intellectual property. I’ve certainly never heard of a case where Monsanto went after a farmer for accidental cross-pollination or contamination.

It’s all Monsanto’s seed. Eventually, simple wind-pollination will spread their engineered genes (in varying proportions of incidence) throughout any continuous region of farmland, and everyone will have to buy seed from Monsanto every year until the patent falls into public domain. (And it’s not like they’re going to stop doing research and coming out with new patentable genes to use to stop farmers from saving seed.)

Monsanto wants to own everybody’s seed corn. (And beans.) It’s an awe-striking business model. Monsanto has managed to buy this privilege through political influence.

Yeah… See, I don’t buy this. I’d like to see some actual evidence of both the premises and whatever led you to this bizarre conclusion.

Also, the present level of RoundUp use is destroying milkweed stocks to the degree that the monarch butterfly is about to go extinct. That’s vile, too.

On one hand: yeah, that sucks. On the other hand: should we just ignore milkweed? Seriously. It’s a weed. Farmers don’t want it in their fields, and it reduces crop yields. From what I can find (Monarch butterfly decline: Monsanto’s Roundup is killing milkweed.) that’s where most of this is coming from - milkweed is no longer being a pest in RoundUp-ready crop fields. What do you think the balance is here?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Claverhouse

A lot of people weren’t enthused with Agent Orange.

Not sure how this was Monsanto’s fault. They made it according to government specifications, and if they hadn’t, someone else would have.

[CalMeacham]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Okay, gonna have to stop you right there. Citation, please? From what I’ve heard, case law on things like Monsanto vs. Schmeisser is pretty clear that accidental cross-pollination does not constitute a violation of Monsanto’s intellectual property. I’ve certainly never heard of a case where Monsanto went after a farmer for accidental cross-pollination or contamination.

You only have to search for “Monsanto … cross-pollination…sue” to bring up a raft of websites relating to this. It’s not hard to find, and even in that case there’s much more to it than what you say. For instance, Sourcewatch gives this:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers

Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer’s fields even though the farmers say they never planted them (examples [1] [2]). Farmers who get into the Roundup-Ready (RR) System lose their independence, and are obliged to sign a lengthy and restrictive agreement. [3]. What’s more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers (and independent, non-GM farmers as well), taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation [4] [5]. It also maintains a hotline so farmers can turn in their neighbors for suspected violations.

According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers Monsanto pursues hundreds of new investigative leads a year, 600 in 2003 for example, aimed at farmers.

“The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments”.

To be fair, there are undoubtedly a percentage of cases wherein the “violating” farmer signed the contract with full knowledge of what he was getting himself into. Equally without doubt however, there are many who either signed without reading (or understanding) the fine print, or who were perhaps given a bag of seed by a friend (not uncommon), or whose crops were pollinated by a neighbor’s GM field - the HT trait going undetected (how many farmers routinely test for herbicide tolerance?) until a large portion of his crops are GM, or who perhaps gave the engineered seed a trial run one year then next growing season changed his mind only to find that the persistant stuff keeps coming back effectively putting him in violation, etc.

Further along:

Monsanto v. Percy Schmeiser

In the Canadian Supreme Court case of Monsanto v Percy Schmeiser, the farmer’s claim that the presence of RR crops occurred accidentally was rejected. However Schmeiser says that since he never used Monsanto’s Roundup in his fields there would have been no reason for him to have RR crops. Schmeiser was not required to pay Monsanto any damages due to the fact that he had not profited from the “infringement”.

Nevertheless what is disturbing to many is the fact that, though technically the court attempted to limit Monsanto’s patent protection to its engineered gene, in effect the court allowed Monsanto to claim patent ownership of a plant, a form of life [23], and that is because the engineered gene cannot be separated from the plant - except in a lab.

“Mr. Schmeiser saved the seed and reused it ‘for production and advantage,’ the majority noted. ‘Whether or not patent protection for the gene and the cell extends to activities involving the plant is not relevant to the patent’s validity’” “The team of dissenting judges in the latest decision, led by Justice Louise Arbour, said the ruling contradicts the Harvard mouse judgment. The majority is effectively allowing Monsanto ‘to do indirectly what Canadian patent law has not allowed them to do directly: namely, to acquire patent protection over whole plants,’ wrote Arbour” [24] [25].

This site indicates thast Monsanto sued 13 farmers one year, while threatening to sue more. The farmers don’t like the intimidation, even if suits don’t actually occur:

http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm

I. The Farmers Sue Monsanto

Those criticisms are unlikely to go away, particularly in the wake of a controversial decision by The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal court. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald moved this week to throw out a potential class action lawsuit [1][2][3], sought by small independent farmers.

In the case the farmers, led by lead plaintiff Bryce Stephens, sought relief against Monsanto in the form a prohibition on Monsanto from bringing suit against organic farmers regarding seed contamination, given the really real possibility of cross-pollination via the wind and animals.

Mr. Stephens, who received degrees from Wichita State University (Kans.) and Washburn University (Kans.), turned away from a potentially lucrative career in law to instead run an 1,000 acre family farm that has been organic since 1994. But Mr. Stephens states that he was unable to grow organic soybeans – a high demand crop – for two reason both tracing to Monsanto’s transgenic crops.

First, he says that his neighbors grew the transgenic strain. When other farmers in the area took their soybeans to be genetically tested, they test positive for Monsanto’s patented genes – the Monsanto crop had spread its germ into their fields. As bulk buyers who supply such mega-health food chains such as Whole Food Market, Inc. (WFM) test for transgenic genetics, this would have made his crop essentially worthless. It is estimated that between 0.5 and 2 percent of “organic” corn is really genetically modified.
Second, there was the implied threat that even if he did try to sell his organic crop to various small buyers that Monsanto might sue. He writes, “I have long been aware of Monsanto’s campaign of patent accusations against farmers. This has been well publicized in news reports and documentaries about the farming industry that I have read and seen. I have also personally contributed support through certain organizations to help a specific farmer that was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement.”

Now Mr. Stephens and his fellow organic farmers had several legal options at their disposal – for example, they could have sent a legal cease and desist letter Monsanto to try to prevent future suits. Instead, their attorney Dan Ravicher (the lead attorney) of the Public Patent Foundation opted for a novel approach – file a class action suit looking to put in place a “laws of nature” based preliminary injunction that would prohibit Monsanto from suing small farmers for seed contamination, or at least put restrictions on the practice.

The class was expected to grow to at least 3,000 organic farmers, had it been authorized.

II. But Were the Tables Really Turned?

However, things were killed before they even took off. The judge apparently took issue with the fact that none of the farmers had been personally threatened by Monsanto, and the fact that Monsanto only brought a small number of patent infringement suits last year.

The company successfully argued that the suit was pointless as its policy was not sue if “trace” amounts of patented seed were found on an organic farmer’s land.

Wrote the judge, “[the allegations] are unsubstantiated … given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.” She also complained that the farmers had “overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto’s] patent enforcement”, which documents indicated entailed 13 cases last year, which she opined “is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million.”

Of course, that ruling does overlook the fact there are only 13,000 organic farmers in the U.S., out of those 2 million [source].

Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation and lead lawyer for the plaintiffs said the ruling will allow Monsanto to continue “patent bullying” and called it “gravely disappointing.”

I’m not personally directly affected by this, and I haven’t been following it closely, so I can’t produce a lengthy defense, but I find it hard to believe that you haven’t heard about all this. I have, and I haven’t even been trying.

Monsanto’s own website claims that it hasn’t brought more than that one suit, and even says that “two separate courts acknowledged that Monsanto has not taken action – or even suggested taking action – against organic growers because of cross-pollination”. That’s hard to square with the above cite by a court saying that Monsanto had done it 13 times in one year, or with the general fear among organic farmers that Monsanto is threatening to go after any or all of them, which lead them to start a class-action suit. You don’t do that sort of thing lightly.

[foolsguinea]

nm

[foolsguinea]

I have not kept up with the cases. I don’t know where all things are now. I know that Monsanto has some pretty serious political influence in the USA.

In any case, it’s easy to characterize a corporation as evil when their business model is selling poison.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@CalMeacham

You only have to search for “Monsanto … cross-pollination…sue” to bring up a raft of websites relating to this. It’s not hard to find, and even in that case there’s much more to it than what you say. For instance, Sourcewatch gives this:

Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers - SourceWatch

It’s perhaps worth noting that the first citation mentioned on that “suing farmers who never planted their crops” thing was the Percy Schmeisser case, which leads me to believe that Sourcewatch is not a great place to go for information on this particular issue. The Schmeisser case was pretty straightforward - Schmeisser isolated a small contamination of roundup-ready crop, and specifically replanted and isolated it. His fields were tested, and the court found it unrealistic that the level present could have happened by accident. We’re not talking small amounts here. We’re talking 95-98% of the crop. That doesn’t happen by accident. Let’s take it from a slightly less biased source, eh?

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[4] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

Whoops. Not quite the story Sourcewatch is pushing, huh? See, this is what I was talking about. I’ve heard of these cases. In fact, a large group of organic farmers actually sued Monsanto about such cases (you speak about it below). The result:

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=156

On page six. Basically, the court told people making this argument, “It has never happened and if it did Monsanto would not win”. Your confusion about the 0 vs. 13 thing is because Monsanto is talking about suing organic farms (which wouldn’t have any interest in pirating the seed anyways, as it would lead to them losing organic certification) vs. suing any farms (and given the sheer number of farms Monsanto sells to, 13 is a very small number).

I can’t find any details on the Nelson case from impartial sources. What I can find from CropChoice.com indicates that they’re pulling the same crap as in Monsanto v. Bowman. Again, not a good example. These are farmers who are intentionally trying to find ways around the patent law.

Again, the problem isn’t that I haven’t heard about this. The problem is that I have, and it’s basically all crap.

@foolsguinea

I have not kept up with the cases. I don’t know where all things are now. I know that Monsanto has some pretty serious political influence in the USA.

In any case, it’s easy to characterize a corporation as evil when their business model is selling poison.

:smack: Seriously? We’re going there? As far as baseless platitudes go, this one is only trumped by arcmasteiro’s. Yeah, they’re a corporation. The bottom line is the bottom line. Things that poison pests and weeds are technically poisons. But the fact is that Monsanto’s GM crops actually have some really very positive side-effects for farmers, for health and safety (compare glyphosate to the previous industry standard herbicides, or look into how indian farmers reacted to Bt cotton), and for total output.

[CalMeacham]

It’s perhaps worth noting that the first citation mentioned on that “suing farmers who never planted their crops” thing was the Percy Schmeisser case, which leads me to believe that Sourcewatch is not a great place to go for information on this particular issue. The Schmeisser case was pretty straightforward - Schmeisser isolated a small contamination of roundup-ready crop, and specifically replanted and isolated it. His fields were tested, and the court found it unrealistic that the level present could have happened by accident. We’re not talking small amounts here. We’re talking 95-98% of the crop. That doesn’t happen by accident. Let’s take it from a slightly less biased source, eh?

Perhaps you missed that the Sourcewatch page – in a part that I actually quoted – acknowlerdged that Schmeisser had done that, and wasn’t holding him up as a paragon. I’ll quote it again:

"Mr. Schmeiser saved the seed and reused it ‘for production and advantage,’ the majority noted.

That’s not entirely their concern, however:

‘Whether or not patent protection for the gene and the cell extends to activities involving the plant is not relevant to the patent’s validity’" “The team of dissenting judges in the latest decision, led by Justice Louise Arbour, said the ruling contradicts the Harvard mouse judgment. The majority is effectively allowing Monsanto ‘to do indirectly what Canadian patent law has not allowed them to do directly: namely, to acquire patent protection over whole plants,’ wrote Arbour” [24]

“biased” or not (Sourcewatch says it “does not require a neutral point of view”), the site is being honest.

Your confusion about the 0 vs. 13 thing is because Monsanto is talking about suing organic farms (which wouldn’t have any interest in pirating the seed anyways, as it would lead to them losing organic certification) vs. suing any farms (and given the sheer number of farms Monsanto sells to, 13 is a very small number).

It’s not my confusion – it’s Monsanto’s site parsing its statement. Anyone reading that page would , unless they read it very carefuullycome away with the impression that Monsanto wasn’t suing any farms. And there’s a world of difference between not suing any vs. suing 13.

[Jackmannii]

@CalMeacham

You only have to search for “Monsanto … cross-pollination…sue” to bring up a raft of websites relating to this. It’s not hard to find, and even in that case there’s much more to it than what you say. For instance, Sourcewatch gives this:Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers - SourceWatch

The SourceWatch article says “Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer’s fields even though the farmers say they never planted them (examples [1] [2]).”

Of those “examples”, the first link is dead, and the second involves the case of a North Dakota farmer who did plant a Monsanto variety and ultimately settled a suit the company brought against him for saving and replanting seed. So I’m still not seeing any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for accidental “contamination” (“contamination” goes both ways, incidentally - a farmer’s organic crop can “contaminate” a neighbor’s GM crop field, making his harvest less valuable - but I don’t see anyone suing over that). From an article about legal battles over GM crop seed:

*"The company itself says it annually investigates about 500 “tips” that farmers are illegally using its seeds and settles many of those cases before a lawsuit is filed.

In this way, Monsanto is attempting to protect its business from pirates in much the same way the entertainment industry does when it sues underground digital distributors exploiting music, movies and video games…Many of the farmers Monsanto has sued say, as McFarling claims, that they didn’t read the company’s technology agreement close enough. Others say they never received an agreement in the first place.

The company counters that it sues only the most egregious violations and is protecting the 300,000 law-abiding U.S. farmers who annually pay a premium for its technology. Soy farmers, for instance, pay a “technology fee” of about $6.50 an acre each year.

Some 85% of the nation’s soy crop is genetically engineered to resist Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, a trait many farmers say makes it easier to weed their fields and ultimately cheaper to grow their crops.

“It’s a very efficient and cost-effective way to raise soy beans and that’s why the market has embraced it,” said Ron Heck, who grows 900 acres of genetically engineered soy beans in Perry, Iowa.

Heck, who is also chairman of the American Soybean Association, said he doesn’t mind buying new seed each year and appreciates Monsanto’s crackdown on competitors who don’t pay for their seed.

“You can save seed if you want to use the old technology,” Heck said."*

It is laughable to suggest that farmers are somehow trapped into dealing with Monsanto. If they don’t like the company’s terms, it’s easy to opt out and go with conventionally bred varieties, or with older open-pollinated varieties whose seed can be saved from year to year.

Lastly, I’m ticked off at the idea that defending the usefulness and safety of genetically modified crops means supporting Monsanto. They’re a big corporation, and like lots of big corporations and trade groups, some of their practices and products are less than wonderful. But I also don’t get the “Monsatan” crap. They’re not the embodiment of Evil, except to the conspiracy theory crowd and similar dim bulbs.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@CalMeacham

Perhaps you missed that the Sourcewatch page – in a part that I actually quoted – acknowlerdged that Schmeisser had done that, and wasn’t holding him up as a paragon. I’ll quote it again:

Fair enough. But beyond that, you’re getting into the nitty-gritty of patent law. It’s one thing if Monsanto sues people frivolously and gets away with it. That’s definitely wrong. But if Monsanto sues people who intentionally violate their patent and end up with more GM seed than is realistic through contamination in their fields, I have a hard time blaming Monsanto. The patent law, maybe, but I don’t really have a problem with GMO patents, because I recognize that like most technological advances, if we want major corporations (and their R&D budgets) on board, we have to find a way for them to make a profit off of it.

But look at the context you’re reading that in. In the very next paragraph, they write:

The judgment along with previous ones upon which it was built has been interpreted by many to mean that if any RR crop is found on agricultural land wherein it was not specifically purchased even if it found its way there through entirely natural means such as wind or insect pollination, the farmer is liable to Monsanto for “theft” of its property. That at least seems to be the goal of Monsanto.

This just isn’t true, as the 2012 lawsuit made perfectly clear. The picture they’re trying to paint here is the same one foolsguinea bought into, and it’s just not even close to accurate.

That’s not entirely their concern, however:

But this isn’t a Monsanto problem. It’s a problem with patent law. And I don’t even think it is a problem. Biotech patents are kind of an ugly mess, but all in all the end result is looking positive. Again, it’s worth noting that the organic farmers who sued Monsanto for this could not cite a single case in the 20+ years that Monsanto has been patenting GM seeds where Monsanto had sued someone for accidental cross-pollination.

“biased” or not (Sourcewatch says it “does not require a neutral point of view”), the site is being honest.

It’s not lying, but it presents a story which is somewhat misleading. It does everything it can to paint Monsanto as the bad guy, and cites extremely questionable and very biased sources.

It’s not my confusion – it’s Monsanto’s site parsing its statement. Anyone reading that page would , unless they read it very carefuullycome away with the impression that Monsanto wasn’t suing any farms. And there’s a world of difference between not suing any vs. suing 13.

Where on the site did you read that?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Jackmannii

Lastly, I’m ticked off at the idea that defending the usefulness and safety of genetically modified crops means supporting Monsanto. They’re a big corporation, and like lots of big corporations and trade groups, some of their practices and products are less than wonderful. But I also don’t get the “Monsatan” crap. They’re not the embodiment of Evil, except to the conspiracy theory crowd and similar dim bulbs.

Honestly, part of the reason I started this thread is because as far as I can see, Monsanto is not exactly the bad guy. They’ve invented something that has caused quite a lot of good for farmers, increased overall food production considerably, and lowered pesticide and herbicide toxicity, which is good for everyone. And then they get painted as the villains because they try to protect their IP and because they make herbicides in the first place. Fuck that noise. It’s the same shit as with “Big Pharma”. Who cares how many lives their inventions save or improve, they did something unethical a few years back (or maybe they didn’t, because so many of these stories turn out to be total crap), so they’re evil and can’t be trusted. That bugs me.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@CalMeacham

And there’s a world of difference between not suing any vs. suing 13.

There’s also a world of difference between suing over accidental cross-pollination and suing over deliberate infringement (i.e., Schmeiser). I haven’t seen anything yet to suggest that the 13 cases involved accidental cross-pollination.

[tomndebb]

@Claverhouse

A lot of people weren’t enthused with Agent Orange.

And a lot of people were delighted with it. 2-4-D is nothing more that Ortho Weed-B-Gone and 2-3-5-T is Ortho Chickweed and Clover Killer.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

Much is made of Monsanto’s contracts stifling farmer independence and the fact that the seeds are terminator seeds.

The former is overstated as I understand it. When you buy Monsanto seeds you enter into a contract. The farmer can break the terms of the contract at any point he just won’t get any support. This shouldn’t be any surprise - you don’t get any free tech support from Dell when you crack open the computer case and poke at all the bits inside. Monsanto likewise won’t support your crop when you sprayed some generic week killer that your cousin is a rep for and got a great deal on.

Terminator seeds. I don’t think Monsanto invented them and they are hardly the only company that sells them. The age of farmers saving their seeds for planting next year is long gone.

[Jackmannii]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Much is made of…the fact that the seeds are terminator seeds.

No, they’re not. The “terminator” technology is not in use (you could hardly have farmers being sued for illegally saving seed if the seeds were sterile). And as others have noted, there’s a bit of inconsistency in people having wailed about “terminator” technology, while simultaneously griping about “contamination” from GM varieties. If the crop can’t reproduce from seed, there goes a lot of “contamination” worries.

As for the monarch butterflies, it’s regrettable that having large acreage devoted to farmland means less milkweed and thus less habitat for them. But are we supposed to believe that in pre-Roundup days, farmers just let large stands of milkweed grow to maturity in their fields without the use of herbicides? I don’t think so.

It is also true that if we shifted to organic food production, we’d need lots more land in agricultural use, and that would mean even less habitat for monarchs and other creatures.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Jackmannii

No, they’re not. The “terminator” technology is not in use (you could hardly have farmers being sued for illegally saving seed if the seeds were sterile). And as others have noted, there’s a bit of inconsistency in people having wailed about “terminator” technology, while simultaneously griping about “contamination” from GM varieties. If the crop can’t reproduce from seed, there goes a lot of “contamination” worries.

I always assumed that ‘terminator’ seeds were not 100% reliable, like old-day vasectomies.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Jackmannii

Lastly, I’m ticked off at the idea that defending the usefulness and safety of genetically modified crops means supporting Monsanto. They’re a big corporation, and like lots of big corporations and trade groups, some of their practices and products are less than wonderful. But I also don’t get the “Monsatan” crap. They’re not the embodiment of Evil, except to the conspiracy theory crowd and similar dim bulbs.

Same thing happens with a lot of targets of crazies. Nixon was a complete asshole on every level but he wasn’t responsible for the assassination of JFK. But with many Buff’s claims you end up having to defend Tricky Dick.

[kaylasdad99]

Quite apart from accidental cross-pollination issues, I can’t say I’m thrilled about the whole Monsanto-owns-royalty-rights-to-my-harvest-next-year-just-because-I-saved-some-seed-from-this-year thing. According to U.S. (and international) patent law, does this condition ever expire?