hell yea. another F YOU to monsanto

[MaggieMae]

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).

 

[Dr Gregg]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

another case, guy saved the seeds violating the license.

I ask again, these farmers knowingly signed into a licensing agreement, what give them the right to whine when they break the license agreement and essentially steal another companies product? Monsanto didn't make them sign the agreement under knife point, did they?

 

[Si modo]

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.

What "bullying tactics"?



I still have no idea what you are trying to say. And, I've asked nicely and you keep dodging.

 

[Si modo]

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).

Folks can't plant seeds they don't have or they burn.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

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.

Then what is the option if there is no other company that sells seed? don't know much about anti-trust law. What should happen to them if its determined they have a monopoly? What's considered monopoly, wouldn't it be 100%?

Should they just give their products away then? And the courts don't agree with you

Monstanto may benefit from previous court rulings in which intellectual property rights trumped competition concerns.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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..

So you don't care about the facts of the matter?

and how is it their fault that they had the innovative idea, and the finances and innovative vision to do extensive research and development before any other company did, and spent 6 billion on it, and are now benefitting from it. Intellectual property is a huge things, especially this day and age of new technologies and innovation, that must be protected if we want more innovation, as its risky, costs lots of money, and requires hard work.

They are not stopping other companies from developing better seeds, are they? Granted, they have a huge advantage cause they have a huge market share and lots of resources.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

The source of the OP is such a clear piece of propaganda, that's why. If you can't see that, then you have your head up your ass. I've posted several factual articles, and even court cases to show that many of the claims in these articles are not factual. IN the OP, some of the references they cite are group emails. HOw is that evidence? The layman person who doesn't care about what the facts are probably won't even check what the actual source is. Amazing you can't see how that article is biased. And his links were what I linked anyway, and it never says that they are forcing Haiti to buy their seeds. THey don't have to buy them if they don't want to. THey are getting a free round of seeds in tough times.

The only truth in the OP article is that the Haitians are burning the seeds. The other shit about Monstanto is not factual nor supported by any evidence, just claims

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

What plant biotechnology companies were put out of business? evidence please. If you have a strong patent on your product, then that speaks for itself. Only thing monsanto can do is license it or just buy the company, which those small biotech companies don't mind that happening, as they make lots of money off the deal.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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

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.

Again, their claims, that can't be proven, that comes from a biased documentary that has an agenda. Like people don't lie, get real. Where is there evidence of this? A documentary doesn't get all the facts, court cases hear both sides and make a decision. And what kind of deal were they looking for? cHeaper than the normal license? Free seeds? Paying the licensing fee would be much cheaper than infringement and being sued.

I'll still look, but nothing I've seen so far shows actual evidnece and proof of all these claims, and seriously, a documentary is about as biased as you get. I like Michael Moore documentaries, but even I realize its totally slanted

I'm still looking for actual proof of what these people claim.

 

[Si modo]

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

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.

Well, the actual court cases are public record.

Hmmm. Let's see. Who do we trust to decide torts? Courts or filmakers?








*still pondering with amazment...not my question, though*

 

[Si modo]

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.

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.

The product they produce as a result of that research and innovation is a product the market wants. They succeed at selling that product to their market.

Their market is pleased with what the product gives them. If Monsanto's market does not steal from Monsanto, that market benefits with higher product yields and lower production costs.

What's the problem?

 

[MaggieMae]

In 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.

Upon learning of Mr. McFarling

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 Monsanto’s 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 doesn’t 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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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.

 

[Si modo]

In 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.

Upon learning of Mr. McFarling

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 Monsanto’s 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 doesn’t 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.

But it's NOT monopolistic. No matter how many times you say that, it makes it no more untrue than the first time you said it.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Furthermore, 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.

Goliath Whomps David - Reason Magazine

Again, claim not proven.
more on the case
High Plains Drifting: Wind-Blown Seeds and the Intellectual Property Implications of the GMO Revolution

Are you planning to post all of them? Not interested.

 

[Dr Gregg]

In 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.

Upon learning of Mr. McFarling

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 Monsanto’s 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 doesn’t 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.

Your opinion vs the law based on all the facts. Which one is more rational?

 

[Si modo]

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.

Farmers certainly CAN plant non-Monsanto seeds any time they wish to do so.

Obviously, they don't wish to do so.

I wonder why?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Yup. Not a monopoly.

Sigh, Si...

Definitions of monopoly (n)
Control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service