Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Christ almighty, Nate.
NO ONE HAS to buy hybrid seeds.
Yup, they get a year's supply of crop seeds for free, and if they want to use them, they can buy them. they are not being forced. maybe its an attempt by monsanto to get into Haiti markets, but its not forcing them, and frankly sounds like good business.
Completely agree Doc, while looking through sites earlier about this company, it was damn near impossible to find any non-biased sites about this company. I also agree with you on GM crops, there just isn't enough data out there to prove any negative effects from these plants. What I have a problem with is the strong arm tactics(I know some would call it good business) this company has used and their use of pesticides and fumigation in Developing Countries without knowledge of the impact it would cause enviromentally.
tha'ts a fair criticism. But nothing has shown yet, even after years and years, of anything being environmentally damaging with GMO crops. Mostly its irrational fears of people scared of genetic manipulation and slippery slope arguments. People focus too much on science fiction movies
I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed.
Folks can't plant seeds they don't have or they burn.Christ almighty, Nate.
NO ONE HAS to buy hybrid seeds.
Yup, they get a year's supply of crop seeds for free, and if they want to use them, they can buy them. they are not being forced. maybe its an attempt by monsanto to get into Haiti markets, but its not forcing them, and frankly sounds like good business.
What the Haitians want is experienced help planting and harvesting. Apparently Cuba is stepping up to the plate and doing a better job of that than the U.S. (or Monsanto who only shipped the seeds).
Yup. Monsanto provides quality product, thus farmers buy their product.Looks like you also missed that Monsanto owns a majority of the seed companies in the nation. They've locked our Agriculture market and now it seems they want to lock Haiti's as well.
Unless it's a monopoly, and it's not, no problem.
Not a monopoly? It sells 90% of US genetically altered seeds.
Monstanto may benefit from previous court rulings in which intellectual property rights trumped competition concerns.
I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed..
Evil, I tell ya! It's just eeeeevil to develop strains resistant to disease, drought, etc. so that areas that are not suited to ag and have a high rate of starvation can actually feed themselves, rather than depending on outside assistance.
And, it's even more evil to protect that technology so that they can stay in business and continue to provide these hybrids to low quality ag areas.
They should go straight to hell.
If only Monsanto had such noble credentials. It doesn't. Even if some of their hybrid soy seedlings drift via the wind onto a privately farmed land, Monsanto will SUE that farmer for "unauthorized" planting of their patented seed. They have armies of "inspectors" doing just that--poking around acreage, and once they find a precious Monsanto seedling, they then unleash an army of lawyers. You need to watch the documentary Food, Inc., the second part of which is ALL about Monsanto which has put hundreds (if not thousands) of private farmers into bankruptcy in order to maintain its monopoly on the soy market.
and where is the evidence of this?how do you know the court cases didn't find that the farmer just claimed it blew onto their farm and the evidence showed that they reused or stole seeds.
And again, I'm reading your article and it reads
Monsantos technology agreement requires farmers to give up their
time-honored practice of saving seed, a crucial practice upon which the
expansion of the germplasm base in modern agriculture depends
So if they didn't like the agreement, why buy their seeds? how is that monsanto's problem, who spent 6 billion dollars on seed research? They are not allowed to make ap profit on their hard work and innovation? Sounds liek a lot of whining from farmers that signed agreement but now don't like it. Again, the first couple paragraphs of chapter 2 so far says just that. Again, why did they buy the seeds in the first place?
And Nate, if you were truly being open minded, you wouldn't take such a horrible, opinionated and biased piece of journalism from an internet site that cites emails as sources and other nonsense. And you would be able to see from the get go that is was garbage journalism. That really should be clear from the articl. compare the first 2 I posted, to that one, and you see a clear difference between one stating facts, and the other throwing bias and opinion into it
Now, there are other real journalistic pieces critical of monstanto, but the OPs link most definitely was not
I don't know why you've got your ass in the air over Nate's "source" when the same information can be found at just about every news outlet, and then some. Go find a source more suitable to your liking, if you don't accept Truthout.
Completely agree Doc, while looking through sites earlier about this company, it was damn near impossible to find any non-biased sites about this company. I also agree with you on GM crops, there just isn't enough data out there to prove any negative effects from these plants. What I have a problem with is the strong arm tactics(I know some would call it good business) this company has used and their use of pesticides and fumigation in Developing Countries without knowledge of the impact it would cause enviromentally.
tha'ts a fair criticism. But nothing has shown yet, even after years and years, of anything being environmentally damaging with GMO crops. Mostly its irrational fears of people scared of genetic manipulation and slippery slope arguments. People focus too much on science fiction movies
I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed.
That is the nature of hybrid strains. They do not reproduce.
Any farmer who uses hybrid strains must purchase every year. And, hybrid strains are the most commonly used because of high yield.
Or, Haiti can just burn free seeds and buy them elsewhere.
Must be voodoo.
Leaving Haiti out of the discussion, it must be really tough for a "conservative" to decide which to support: The big business or the small farmer owning a private agricultural business, since there's no gubmit to blame here.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
and where is the evidence of this?how do you know the court cases didn't find that the farmer just claimed it blew onto their farm and the evidence showed that they reused or stole seeds.
And again, I'm reading your article and it reads
Monsanto’s technology agreement requires farmers to give up their
time-honored practice of saving seed, a crucial practice upon which the
expansion of the germplasm base in modern agriculture depends
So if they didn't like the agreement, why buy their seeds? how is that monsanto's problem, who spent 6 billion dollars on seed research? They are not allowed to make ap profit on their hard work and innovation? Sounds liek a lot of whining from farmers that signed agreement but now don't like it. Again, the first couple paragraphs of chapter 2 so far says just that. Again, why did they buy the seeds in the first place?
In the documentary, there were many interviews of both farmers who had attempted to work with Monsanto, those who refused to work with them, and also Monsanto's legal team representatives. You'll have to see the film to have your questions adequately answered. But I wouldn't be so quick to accuse these farmers of just "whining" until you DO know more.
and where is the evidence of this?how do you know the court cases didn't find that the farmer just claimed it blew onto their farm and the evidence showed that they reused or stole seeds.
And again, I'm reading your article and it reads
Monsantos technology agreement requires farmers to give up their
time-honored practice of saving seed, a crucial practice upon which the
expansion of the germplasm base in modern agriculture depends
So if they didn't like the agreement, why buy their seeds? how is that monsanto's problem, who spent 6 billion dollars on seed research? They are not allowed to make ap profit on their hard work and innovation? Sounds liek a lot of whining from farmers that signed agreement but now don't like it. Again, the first couple paragraphs of chapter 2 so far says just that. Again, why did they buy the seeds in the first place?
In the documentary, there were many interviews of both farmers who had attempted to work with Monsanto, those who refused to work with them, and also Monsanto's legal team representatives. You'll have to see the film to have your questions adequately answered. But I wouldn't be so quick to accuse these farmers of just "whining" until you DO know more.
Oh, I certainly can. Monsanto has researched and come up with an innovative product. They patented the technology and own the intellectual property to that.Leaving Haiti out of the discussion, it must be really tough for a "conservative" to decide which to support: The big business or the small farmer owning a private agricultural business, since there's no gubmit to blame here.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Conservatives = always fully in support of Big Business (trickle-down; major employers)
and therefore protect corporate welfare (yes, even Monsanto gets subsidized).
Conservatives = always fully in support of small business owners (the "backbone of Americanism").
Better? You can't take sides on this particular issue, it would seem.
Upon learning of Mr. McFarlingIn 1998, Mr. McFarling purchased Roundup Ready soybean seeds from a seed
company. He signed the Technology Agreement for that year and paid the required
fees. In violation of the license agreement, however, he saved seeds from his 1998
soybean crop and planted those seeds in 1999. He did the same thing the next year,
saving soybeans from his 1999 crop and planting them in 2000. The saved seeds
contained the patented genetic traits, but Mr. McFarling did not pay the license fee for
the 1999 or 2000 growing seasons.
One court case, guy saved seeds violating the agreement
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/05opinions/05-1570.pdf
Another court case where farmer never signed the license getting seeds from seed sellers
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs
Most things I see that even mention the "blowing of seeds from neighboring farms' are from these biased sites that never cite actual reports and court cases where this is mentioned. I'll keep looking
For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.
Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsantos the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesnt actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.
Well, the USPTO has ruled that aLthough naturally occurring things can't be patented, genetically modified organisms can. I'ts an inventive process to make genetically modified organisms, and that innovation should be rewarded, as should all innovation. YOu want to take patents away, nobody is going to spend the time, money and resource to develop new products if they can't get market exclusivity and get a return on their investment. Some copy cat can come along putting no work in of their own and just steal their hard work
That's one thing many of the anti corporation people don't get, especially when it comes to biotechnology.
Why can't Monsanto just plant soy seeds, period? They certainly still have more acreage than all the other farmers combined and would still be the #1 profiteer. They answer is they're not "farmers," but chemists hawking their pestisides which they found a way to inject into food products. It's almost like a Dean Koontz plot.
Why would Monsanto 'just plant soy seeds'? They are a supplier TO the farmers.
I still don't know what you are trying to say. Really.
Sorry.
Upon learning of Mr. McFarlingIn 1998, Mr. McFarling purchased Roundup Ready soybean seeds from a seed
company. He signed the Technology Agreement for that year and paid the required
fees. In violation of the license agreement, however, he saved seeds from his 1998
soybean crop and planted those seeds in 1999. He did the same thing the next year,
saving soybeans from his 1999 crop and planting them in 2000. The saved seeds
contained the patented genetic traits, but Mr. McFarling did not pay the license fee for
the 1999 or 2000 growing seasons.
One court case, guy saved seeds violating the agreement
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/05opinions/05-1570.pdf
Another court case where farmer never signed the license getting seeds from seed sellers
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs
Most things I see that even mention the "blowing of seeds from neighboring farms' are from these biased sites that never cite actual reports and court cases where this is mentioned. I'll keep looking
I don't care how many lawsuits Monsanto wins over their licensing agreements, this monopolistic practice is just plain WRONG.
Monsanto versus Farmers
For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.
Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsantos the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesnt actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.
Here's a case where the farmer claimed cross pollination of plants
But as often occurs, court cases turn on particular facts. First, expert testimony accepted by the court explained that mere cross-pollination could not produce a canola crop that was 95 percent to 98 percent Roundup Ready. Second, in 1996, when the alleged cross-pollination would have occurred, the nearest farmer licensed to use Roundup Ready Canola was five miles away. Third, an expert in road vehicle aerodynamics testified that canola seed falling from passing trucks would travel no more than 8.8 meters.
Goliath Whomps David - Reason MagazineFurthermore, although Schmeiser claimed that he used other herbicides to control weeds in his fields, including Treflan, Muster, and Assure in 1997 and 1998, he could produce no receipts to show that he had purchased those chemicals. However, he did have receipts that showed that he had bought Roundup. Finally, a neighboring farmer testified that Schmeiser's hired hand had told him several times that Schmeiser had grown Roundup Ready canola and then sprayed Roundup on the crop.
Again, claim not proven.
more on the case
High Plains Drifting: Wind-Blown Seeds and the Intellectual Property Implications of the GMO Revolution
Upon learning of Mr. McFarlingIn 1998, Mr. McFarling purchased Roundup Ready soybean seeds from a seed
company. He signed the Technology Agreement for that year and paid the required
fees. In violation of the license agreement, however, he saved seeds from his 1998
soybean crop and planted those seeds in 1999. He did the same thing the next year,
saving soybeans from his 1999 crop and planting them in 2000. The saved seeds
contained the patented genetic traits, but Mr. McFarling did not pay the license fee for
the 1999 or 2000 growing seasons.
One court case, guy saved seeds violating the agreement
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/05opinions/05-1570.pdf
Another court case where farmer never signed the license getting seeds from seed sellers
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs
Most things I see that even mention the "blowing of seeds from neighboring farms' are from these biased sites that never cite actual reports and court cases where this is mentioned. I'll keep looking
I don't care how many lawsuits Monsanto wins over their licensing agreements, this monopolistic practice is just plain WRONG.
Monsanto versus Farmers
For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.
Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsantos the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesnt actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.
Why can't Monsanto just plant soy seeds, period? They certainly still have more acreage than all the other farmers combined and would still be the #1 profiteer. They answer is they're not "farmers," but chemists hawking their pestisides which they found a way to inject into food products. It's almost like a Dean Koontz plot.
Why would Monsanto 'just plant soy seeds'? They are a supplier TO the farmers.
I still don't know what you are trying to say. Really.
Sorry.
I'm saying I don't know of many people who died or got sick from non genetically altered soybeans. There was nothing wrong with the ones farmers used for decades before Monsanto discovered a huge profit base.
Yup. Not a monopoly.Yup. Monsanto provides quality product, thus farmers buy their product.
Unless it's a monopoly, and it's not, no problem.
Not a monopoly? It sells 90% of US genetically altered seeds.
