Monsanto

that's a fair point, thanks for clarification

conflating Monsanto and GMO is problematic imo, even if they have been on the breaking edge of the wave

yes, definitely, my issue is with the patenting and the lawsuits

any particular lawsuits? science patents are pretty fucked across the board, imo

I'm against the entire legal principle that allows the patenting of a genetic code

mh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

same story, different article:

http://www.rodalenews.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-organic-farmers-lose-right-protect-crops

The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields.

The Bowman case is interesting in that it is kind of a self-defeating move and was done almost completely as trolling. iirc he had previously purchased seed, signed the contracts involved with that seed, and then decided he was going to be clever and try to get something for free, and in fact rub it in the face of the people who sold him the original seed. I can't vouch for the completeness of this article, but it gets into the fact that he was a licensee who was trying to get around a license he signed: http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/09/monsanto-co-v-bowman-fed-cir-2011.html

I think the legislation, as-is, is problematic although the public understanding of plant breeding is more so. If hybrid maize was saved and planted year-over-year, you'd have a completely different crop than originally planted -- hybrids do not breed true. I'm less versed with the soy end of things (as is the industry, as soy is a distant second as far as planted acres go), but I believe the same holds true.

It's worth noting that the last article isn't about Monsanto suing anyone -- it's about a group preemptively suing Monsanto. It's also inconsistent in that they start out with

The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields.

The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that none of the plaintiffs had actually been sued by Monsanto and therefore their reasons were "unsubstantiated."

yeah, that might be repeating misinformation from the Saskatchewan case. that's what I get for a cursory search.

you are correct abt hybrids not breeding true, I think that is the case for all crops

fwiw, Monsanto's background in crop biotech is illuminating as far as their motives go

Until the 80s, they were pretty much completely a chemical company, but (as several companies did) they decided that biotechnology was going to be huge and started tinkering with plant genetics in the 80s. They didn't really bring anything to market until the mid-90s, at which point they licensed the technology to many companies, and got into the maize business. That was in 1996 -- they didn't actually own any means of commercial production before then, afaik.

Following that, they bought as many of the mid-sized maize seed companies as they could. Others have been bought or merged into other corporations. As far as mass industrial feed stock goes, the majority is Roundup Ready seed.

a better article, which notes that many farmers settle because they can't afford to go to court:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805

What I know from friends/family involved in farming (of the corn variety) and what I've heard in my professional career, you can break down the corn industry like this:

• Small growers, low acreage: No real net positive for buying expensive seed. They use the same seed year-over-year, or more likely just buy something cheap and local. If they own equipment it's old or small-scale. Pretty unsophisticated as far as chemicals go (you see bugs, you spray for bugs?)
• Mid-sized growers: Might own some of their own equipment, might rent out or pay teams to come harvest/spray. Real entry level for the high-end seed, more likely to take shortcuts, very interested in whatever it takes to get better yield. Unsophisticated about chemicals, but can afford them.
• Large-scale operations: Own large tracts of contiguous land, tens of thousands of acres. Own really expensive equipment. Precision agriculture, including yield monitoring by location, fertilizer and chemical application appropriate down to the acre. Probably have drones flying over their fields.

that VF article kind of shows the way they are being assclowns, though -- afaik, they hire jerks to lurk around farms that have signed a license agreement, wait for them to plant seed that wasn't purchased under that agreement but has patented traits, and then drop paperwork

the fact that their goons can't even tell which farmer (or store owner) is which is kind of the prime indicator that they don't give a shit about farmers, even while they're buying up seed companies

corn farming is so fucking weird these days. there's a yearly show called the "f4rm progress show" that bounces between Iowa and Illinois and the weirdest moment, attending it probably six or so years ago, was seeing a machine that was planting seed in a field at a precise depth that varied by that square foot's soil conditions, ground temperature, etc. followed by a FFA kid in high school with messed up teeth asking me if I could grab a free sample of chaw for him from this chewing tobacco booth

I think Monsanto will even sue farmers who have genetically modified seeds blow into their land without even planting it on purpose

uh we just went over that case

They haven't, iirc, although people will constantly claim they have

there has been at least one high-profile misunderstanding of that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

All claims relating to Roundup Ready canola in Schmeiser's 1997 canola crop were dropped prior to trial and the court only considered the canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.

however, the Oregon wheat case referred to above seems to have been the result of accidental contamination - but afaik nobody is being sued there.

If you're curious and/or a complete masochist, page 32 of this pdf appears to be the 2015 technology use agreement:
http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/technology-use-guide.pdf

yes, definitely, my issue is with the patenting and the lawsuits

― sleeve, Friday, May 22, 2015 4:51 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

right and i won't begrudge that, but this revive was about a food company ditching GMO ingredients. different issue

chipotle is full of shit, I go into there and wear a little towel over my eyes as if I was eating an ortolan, so as to not see the "gmo free" banner

I know a few beekeepers, and most of the concern I see about Monsanto/GMOs is about the effect on bee populations from using additional pesticide. Can anyone point to a good, solid article that defends against this?

The bee issue is complex and most likely related to insecticides, if there is a link. I know a single study was about honeybee confusion in presence of glyphosate (a herbicide), but that was in isolation and was fairly circumstantial. There's a stronger case for neonicotinoids (a seed treatment, which a seed is coated in, in order to avoid predation of the seed and seedlings) being toxic to bees, but I am not aware of any evidence that it happens when used as intended.

There is a case in Europe where a field was planted with a neonicotinoid treatment that was powdered, it was windy, and it blew on to a neighboring field that was pollinating. Pretty atypical, not how that pesticide is recommended to be used.

The "articles that defend against" policy is kind of one of those "can you show an article saying you didn't beat your wife?" things. I think there might be something messing with honeybees, but every agriculture chemical-based argument I've read is usually a petition saying "ban neonicotinoids and glyphosate and save the bees!"

also worth noting that people throw neonicotinoids under the weird GMO umbrella (and under the Monsanto thread!) when it's just a nicotine-like chemical

fwiw original Roundup (glyphosate) isn't under patent anymore and you can buy it generically.

also, the glyphosate tolerance gene? for soybeans, it's no longer under patent. it's expired elsewhere, but as of this year, it's open in the US

yeah it is my understanding that a lot of nicotine-based pesticides actually qualify for organic certification.

I will try to look up some good links for the neonicotinoid/bee issue, it's been talked about a lot in the Willamette valley lately.