The Opposition to Genetically Modified Food Has Killed Millions

[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.

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.

We have a saying in Missouri: "Show me."  Comes from an old quote ""I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me." "

[The Minsky Moment]

The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple.  Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer.  Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Berkut]

The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple.  Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer.  Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.

The entire claim that Monsanto is suing farmers who have their seed in their fields that was blown there by wind is just so fucking stupid.

I mean - why would Monsanto do something that dumb? I get the whole "ZOMG TEH CORPOATE EVIL GIANT IS OUT TO SCREW US ALL" thing that is so very cool, but doesn't that at least assume that the evil corporate monster is evil in a rational, intelligent manner?

What does Monsanto have to gain by suing their customers for NOT taking their product?

[Razgovory]

Weird.  I'm with Berkut on this.  Shame he don't know that, though.

[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.

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?

Lets examine your assertion you dont have to trust Monsanto.

Your first post said that Monsanto only sues farmers when Monsanto determines that they ought to be sued and implicit in your statement is the assumption that Monsanto's judgment is correct and therefore ought to be trusted.

Now lets turn to your second assumption - that the courts are there to tell Monsanto if they are wrong.  You are, of course, ignoring the significant cost of defending one of these cases.

So tell me again you dont have to trust Monsanto...

[crazy canuck]

The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple.  Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer.  Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.

The entire claim that Monsanto is suing farmers who have their seed in their fields that was blown there by wind is just so fucking stupid.

I mean - why would Monsanto do something that dumb? I get the whole "ZOMG TEH CORPOATE EVIL GIANT IS OUT TO SCREW US ALL" thing that is so very cool, but doesn't that at least assume that the evil corporate monster is evil in a rational, intelligent manner?

What does Monsanto have to gain by suing their customers for NOT taking their product?

I am very surprised that JR is making the same fundamental error as Berkut.  That an individual farmer can afford to get the case "thrown out".

[Berkut]

The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple.  Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer.  Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.

The entire claim that Monsanto is suing farmers who have their seed in their fields that was blown there by wind is just so fucking stupid.

I mean - why would Monsanto do something that dumb? I get the whole "ZOMG TEH CORPOATE EVIL GIANT IS OUT TO SCREW US ALL" thing that is so very cool, but doesn't that at least assume that the evil corporate monster is evil in a rational, intelligent manner?

What does Monsanto have to gain by suing their customers for NOT taking their product?

I am very surprised that JR is making the same fundamental error as Berkut.  That an individual farmer can afford to get the case "thrown out".

I am surprised you don't understand how courts work...oh wait, no I am not.

[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?

Lets examine your assertion you dont have to trust Monsanto.

Your first post said that Monsanto only sues farmers when Monsanto determines that they ought to be sued and implicit in your statement is the assumption that Monsanto's judgment is correct and therefore ought to be trusted.

Now lets turn to your second assumption - that the courts are there to tell Monsanto if they are wrong.  You are, of course, ignoring the significant cost of defending one of these cases.

So tell me again you dont have to trust Monsanto...

I don't have to trust Mosanto.

Please provide the requested example of Mosanto suing a farmer for having seeds that were blown into their field.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am very surprised that JR is making the same fundamental error as Berkut.  That an individual farmer can afford to get the case "thrown out".

That's a problem entirely independent of GMO or the state of patent law.  It's always true that a wealthy litigant can bring a bogus lawsuit against a not-so-wealthy person and try to intimidate the latter into giving in for lack of resources.  But this particular situation happens to a case where that risk is actually lesser than usual because federal patent law -- unlike most of the rest of US law - does permit fee shifting.  Also because farmers tend to be somewhat more resourced than other ordinary joe types - say like immigrants or public assistance recipients who do in fact get screwed pretty regularly by the legal system, a fact which raises a fraction of the decibel level of faux outrage and fashionable documentaries than this rather outlandish scenario concerning Monsanto satellites tracking flying Frankenseeds.

The reality of course is that most large corporations try to structure their legal departments to minimize litigation, which is an expense that drags on the bottom line.  Commencing a mass campaign of bogus lawsuits is not usually an attractive option for an institution.

[Neil]

You know, legal arguments aside, I'm not 100% convinved on the morality of patenting life.

[Viking]

You know, legal arguments aside, I'm not 100% convinved on the morality of patenting life.

DNA is code, my main objection to patenting it is that is probably should be copywrited instead.
What is patented is the process which uses coded organisms or parts of organisms.

The problem here is a case of reversing into the expanded circle of sentiments. The attribution of some special properties to a large definition of life has come to bite us in the arse. Life isn't what we thought it was and what we colloquially think it is. All matter exists on a continuum and there really isn't a line in that continuum where you have life on one side and non-life on the other. The more we know about genetics and neurology the more we see that life isn't a thing at all, it is merely one end of the spectrum of chemical interactions.

To be blunt a fuel refinery is more like life than it is like inorganic chemistry.

[Razgovory]

Don't patents expire a lot quicker then copywriter?  If so I think it's a good deal.  I think I've got strong lefty credentials here, but I'm not seeing the evil corporation narrative working here.  Maybe it's because I see GM foods as a fundamentally good thing.  Maybe cause Monsanto is based in this state.  Maybe cause I haven't seen any real evidence of maleficence here.

[Admiral Yi]

I can well imagine without seeing it that the documentary CC referred to is chock-full of salt of the earth farmers swearing on a stack of bibles that any Roundup Ready soybeans that got on their fields were wind blown, and I can well imagine it's full of earnest, bearded law school professors and passionate anti-GM activists eloquently explaining the impossibility of a hard working middle class family farmer defending himself in court against Monsanto's battery of high powered corporate attorney's. I can also well imagine that the only proof of the farmers' innocence they offer is their word. 

That's why I find it so convincing that a writer for NPR (who's lefty credentials are none too shabby either) documents that in the one recognized case of an impartial, credible third party testing the farmer's claim they found 50-75% Roundup Ready beans on the farmer's field.  That's a big ass wind.

I had generally accepted the claims of wind blown seeds and evil Monsanto up to reading that NPR blog; now it's up to the anti-Monsanto folks to put verifiable proof on the table.

[Berkut]

The biggest thing for me is simply that the idea that this company would do this is preposterous.

I mean, the people the company would be suing would be their own customers. Monsanto sells seed to farmers - that is their business. Pissing off farmers with completely absurd lawsuits, even if they could get away with it because the poor farmers can't afford to defend themselves, would be...stupid. What would be the point? To nefariously extract a couple bucks from the poor farmer? Remember, this is a farmer that is so poor they cannot even defend themselves from completely farcical lawsuits.

For every farmer Monsanto forces to settle, how many would never buy their product again?

It simply makes no sense at all. Suing your customers is something companies do as a last resort, not as a way to make a little extra on the side of their primary business, which is to make money actually selling stuff to their customer base.

On the other hand, I can certainly see how this makes such a great story for people who don't care to think too much about what great little stories they are fed - it has all the right elements. The poor, family farmer struggling to get by. The giant mega-corp with their super tech product and battalions of high priced lawyers preying on the little guys.

It is just so...obvious. How are people so fucking gullible? Just because something sounds like something you want to hear doesn't make it true.

[The Minsky Moment]

Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in the Bowman case, 9-0.