The Opposition to Genetically Modified Food Has Killed Millions

[garbon]

I thought this was interesting, including the back and forth discussion in the comments:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

[Razgovory]

I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.

Or someone infecting my computer with a virus and demanding I pay royalties.

[Neil]

I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.

Or someone infecting my computer with a virus and demanding I pay royalties.

This will probably happen in the future.

[crazy canuck]

One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it.  Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours?  Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.

From the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument:

JUSTICE KAGAN: So that -- you know, seeds can be blown onto a farmer's farm by wind, and all of a sudden you have Roundup seeds there and the farmer is infringing . . .So it seems as though -- like pretty much everybody is an infringer at this point, aren't they?
MR. WAXMAN: Certainly not . . . with soybeans, the problem of blowing seed is not an issue for soybeans. Soybeans don't -- I mean, it would take Hurricane Sandy to blow a soybean into some other farmer's field. And soybeans, in any event, are -- you know, have perfect flowers; that is, they contain both the pollen and the stamen, so that they -- which is the reason that they breed free and true, unlike, for example, corn.
The point that there may be many farmers with respect to other crops like alfalfa that may have some inadvertent Roundup Ready alfalfa in their fields may be true, although it's -- it is not well documented. There would be inadvertent infringement if the farmer was cultivating a patented crop, but there would be no enforcement of that.
The farmer wouldn't know, Monsanto wouldn't know, and in any event, the damages would be zero because you would ask what the reasonable royalty would be, and if the farmer doesn't want Roundup Ready technology and isn't using Roundup Ready technology to save costs and increase productivity, the -- the royalty value would be zero.

I've heard this windblown seed argument made before - but are there any actual cases where penalties were imposed on such a person?

Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing.  I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.

[crazy canuck]

I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.

Yes that would be a defence.  And probably a good basis for a claim in nuisance if one did not want GM seed contaminating their crops.

But this kind of litigation is expensive and it is difficult for a lone farmer to stand against the GM manufacturing corporation.

Cue Neil's kill all the lawyers comment.

[Berkut]

One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it.  Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours?  Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.

From the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument:

JUSTICE KAGAN: So that -- you know, seeds can be blown onto a farmer's farm by wind, and all of a sudden you have Roundup seeds there and the farmer is infringing . . .So it seems as though -- like pretty much everybody is an infringer at this point, aren't they?
MR. WAXMAN: Certainly not . . . with soybeans, the problem of blowing seed is not an issue for soybeans. Soybeans don't -- I mean, it would take Hurricane Sandy to blow a soybean into some other farmer's field. And soybeans, in any event, are -- you know, have perfect flowers; that is, they contain both the pollen and the stamen, so that they -- which is the reason that they breed free and true, unlike, for example, corn.
The point that there may be many farmers with respect to other crops like alfalfa that may have some inadvertent Roundup Ready alfalfa in their fields may be true, although it's -- it is not well documented. There would be inadvertent infringement if the farmer was cultivating a patented crop, but there would be no enforcement of that.
The farmer wouldn't know, Monsanto wouldn't know, and in any event, the damages would be zero because you would ask what the reasonable royalty would be, and if the farmer doesn't want Roundup Ready technology and isn't using Roundup Ready technology to save costs and increase productivity, the -- the royalty value would be zero.

I've heard this windblown seed argument made before - but are there any actual cases where penalties were imposed on such a person?

Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. 

However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.

[Razgovory]

Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing.  I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.

Could you perhaps find the farmers and show their individual cases?  Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.

[Viking]

Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing.  I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.

Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases?  Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.

Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.

[crazy canuck]

However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.

I am glad you are so willing to believe the bona fides of Monsanto's investigation which determined that farmers "intentionally" commited a wrongful act.

[Razgovory]

Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing.  I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.

Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases?  Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.

Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.

I qualify as an "unwashed mass", and this is insufficient.

[Neil]

Cue Neil's kill all the lawyers comment.

Yep.  Bad bad lawyers are bad.

[derspiess]

Then go take a shower, Razz.  The weather is no excuse 

[Viking]

Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing.  I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.

Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases?  Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.

Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.

I qualify as an "unwashed mass", and this is insufficient.

Well, you are a self declared gullible neophite.....

The really sad thing about neo-luddism and religious fundamentalism (in the original sense, not the modern one) is that their claims are so dubious and baseless a little learning can easily quash them all... but these claims remain because people value comfort and happiness over truth.

[Admiral Yi]

It doesn't help the anti-Monsanto argument that seemingly the one case of he said she said that was tested by a third party came back with 50-75% IP-protected soy beans.

[Berkut]

However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.

I am glad you are so willing to believe the bona fides of Monsanto's investigation which determined that farmers "intentionally" commited a wrongful act.

I don't have to trust Monsanto - we have courts who rule on such things.

And the courts have ruled for Monsanto, and against Monsanto. What I cannot find is a single example of what you claim happens - that Monsanto has forced someone to pay them damages under the circumstances you claim.

So lets see some evidence - you have made the positive claim that Monsanto has done this - can you provide a single credible example?