Register to reply

Bowman vs Monsanto, genetically modified soybean case

by Jack21222
Tags: bowman, case, genetically, modified, monsanto, soybean
Share this thread:
aquitaine
#37
Nov7-12, 10:40 AM
P: 200
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
And if he doesn't get the seed from where you suggest, and instead gets it from the cross-pollinated with Monsanto's seed, do you feel that Monsanto can sue?
From what I understand seeds cross pollinated with GMOs are sterile, aren't they?
Averagesupernova
#38
Nov7-12, 10:50 AM
P: 2,530
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
And if he doesn't get the seed from where you suggest, and instead gets it from the cross-pollinated with Monsanto's seed, do you feel that Monsanto can sue?
I know they do tissue testing to determine the genetics. It can be proven exactly what the genetics are so the farmer can show that it was a cross. The farmer can show that no Roundup was sprayed so it is shown there is no attempt to benefit from Monsantos technology.
-
It's really irrelevant though. This sort of sloppiness is no different than getting bins mixed up between GMO and non-GMO and the guy ends up planting the wrong thing. Just plain sloppiness. It's no excuse.
-
As far as whether ANYONE can sue for anything, well, it seems anything goes in this country already. I don't feel THAT is right. I have served on enough jury duties to know that many cases should not make it to court, but they do. The way I have laid out the above, I don't think they should sue. But that doesn't mean they won't try. That is a strike against Monsanto, not the product or process.
-
I don't see it any different than someones teenage kid adding lots of aftermarket crap on their car and something falls of on the freeway and injures or kills someone. The excuse is: "Well I didn't know it would do that!". No excuse.
edward
#39
Nov7-12, 12:20 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Averagesupernova;4149167]A VERY VERY VERY small percentage of the neighboring field. Know what else? Non-GMO crops do the same thing. So what's the difference? If a farmer wants to harvest for seed where do you think he is going to get the seed? From the place in the field where it is most unlikley to have crossed with anything else whether it is GMO or not.
Tell that to Bayer AG.

Bayer CropScience has acknowledged one of these situations, agreeing to pay up to $750 million to about 11,000 farmers to compensate for contaminating two varieties of long-grain rice. It remains unclear whether the contamination occurred via cross-pollination or through other pathways. The settlement cost is in addition to other payments Bayer has been forced to make following jury decisions or settlements.
http://www.sej.org/publications/tips...e-costly-bayer
edward
#40
Nov7-12, 12:34 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by aquitaine View Post
From what I understand seeds cross pollinated with GMOs are sterile, aren't they?
No they are not sterile that is a big part of the problem. That is why when Bowman bought what he thought was generic seed from a consumer market it turned out to be GMO seed.

Companies are trying to put terminator GMO crops on the market. The seed of the GMO crop would be sterile.

here is a good read on that situation.

http://www.banterminator.org/content/view/full/233
aquitaine
#41
Nov7-12, 02:10 PM
P: 200
Quote Quote by edward View Post
No they are not sterile that is a big part of the problem. That is why when Bowman bought what he thought was generic seed from a consumer market it turned out to be GMO seed.

Companies are trying to put terminator GMO crops on the market. The seed of the GMO crop would be sterile.

here is a good read on that situation.

http://www.banterminator.org/content/view/full/233

So basically they're evil because they are trying to do something to solve a legitimate problem with their products?
Jack21222
#42
Nov7-12, 02:29 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by aquitaine View Post
So basically they're evil because...
If you were any more hyperbolic, I'd think you were non-Euclidean.
aquitaine
#43
Nov7-12, 02:39 PM
P: 200
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
If you were any more hyperbolic, I'd think you were non-Euclidean.

It's a statement made in light of an absurd claim. That somehow there's this vast corporate conspiracy to "force" people to use GM seeds with a terminator gene. Here's a quote from the site edward linked:

Quote Quote by Banterminator.org
The biotechnology and seed industry is promoting Terminator as a ‘biosafety’ solution to disguise its true role as a biological means of preventing farmers from saving and re-using proprietary seed. Terminator has been widely condemned as a threat to food security for the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed.(1)
Which is totally nonsensical because no one is forcing those farmers to use GM products of any kind in the first place. Statements like this are designed to incite irrational fear and hate so that they can push a political agenda.

EDIT: I'll add on to that. The original complaint was that the seeds might cross pollinate with non modified crops, which is a reasonable thing to be concerned about. A terminator gene would solve this problem, but then those same people who complain about the problem complain about the solution and how it is being forced onto people. You see how the moving goalposts creates a no win scenario for Monsanto, Bayer, or these other companies that develop modified seed? There's an agenda behind this, and it has nothing to do with "protecting the people".
edward
#44
Nov7-12, 04:20 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by aquitaine View Post
So basically they're evil because they are trying to do something to solve a legitimate problem with their products?
Your choice of words not mine.
Averagesupernova
#45
Nov7-12, 04:24 PM
P: 2,530
edward, I thought this thread was about soybeans. If you want to whine about rice start another thread.
edward
#46
Nov7-12, 05:10 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by aquitaine View Post
It's a statement made in light of an absurd claim. That somehow there's this vast corporate conspiracy to "force" people to use GM seeds with a terminator gene. Here's a quote from the site edward linked:

Whoa there I just used the first link that popped up because it explained what a terminator gene was. It was in reference to a your post about GMO seeds being sterile, and was related to the OP in that manner.

Those absurd claims are all over the Internet. It is a challenge to find a GMO link that doesn't include an "absurd claim".

The terminator gene might solve the ongoing problem with patent infringement. Yet it is also capable of destroying traditional farm saved seed as the link and many others mention.

Here is a more balanced link with the pros and cons of the terminator seed. It also makes reference to the tradition of saving seed.

http://www.genomebc.ca/education/art...or-technology/

This is getting a bit off topic, but the law suit is just one aspect of a much larger and ongoing Debate relating to GMO crops. With newer and even more controversial patented GMO crops hitting the market the controversy isn't going to go away any time soon.
edward
#47
Nov7-12, 05:16 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by Averagesupernova View Post
edward, I thought this thread was about soybeans. If you want to whine about rice start another thread.
Why did I ever think that the thread was about a patent infringement law suit.

Cross pollination is cross pollination.

BTW you are doing a lot of posting and making claims without substantiating them with links to reliable sources.
Averagesupernova
#48
Nov7-12, 07:10 PM
P: 2,530
edward, I'll break it down for you.
-
My post #27 is pretty clear. Why should I have to link to anything to prove that buried seeds won't likely blow around?
-
My post #35 states mainly that seed harvesting practices are similar between GMO and non-GMO. Is it so difficult to believe that it is desirable to harvest seed from a location that maintains true genetics instead of risking cross pollinating? You are the one who whines about cross-pollination so all of a sudden you question whether effort is put into avoiding it when non-GMO crops are involved on both sides of the property line? It looks to me that is the direction you are headed.
-
My post #38 is mostly my opinion but the genetics testing should be obvious since they can prove there are GMO traits in the plant, they can obviously prove that there also non-GMO traits, which would indicate a legitimate cross. Concerning the spraying of Roundup or not, records need to be kept of chemical application. A farmer should be able to prove with these as well as receipts of other herbicides purchased that the appropriate chemical was applied.
-
Do I really need to explain post #45? I honestly don't know anything about rice production and there may be a legitimate case there. I see no reason to clutter this thread with it. There have been other class action suits against seed/chemical companies as well and I don't plan on bringing them up.
edward
#49
Nov7-12, 07:25 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by Averagesupernova View Post
edward, I'll break it down for you.
-
My post #27 is pretty clear. Why should I have to link to anything to prove that buried seeds won't likely blow around?
O fcourse seed in the ground do not blow around The topic was cross pollination.

My post #35 states mainly that seed harvesting practices are similar between GMO and non-GMO. Is it so difficult to believe that it is desirable to harvest seed from a location that maintains true genetics instead of risking cross pollinating? You are the one who whines about cross-pollination so all of a sudden you question whether effort is put into avoiding it when non-GMO crops are involved on both sides of the property line? It looks to me that is the direction you are headed.

It looks to you ?? Is that a fact or an assumption?

If you say that I am whining one more time you will be reported. Show a little respect.

I have a gut feeling that you would really like to see this thread locked!!
Averagesupernova
#50
Nov7-12, 07:53 PM
P: 2,530
Actually I was sad to see the prop 37 thread closed.
-
Post #27 is CLEARLY about seeds blowing around.
-
Yes, it is my assumption. The point is that you are very aware of cross-pollination but it appears to me that you don't see that it should be an issue for the guy that makes his living raising the crop.
-
I have taken the liberty to exaggerate the following but felt it was necessary to get my point across. Your attitude about cross-pollination has appeared to me like this:
edward: "Holy cow we can't have these GMO and non-GMO crops next to each other, they will mingle!"
Averagesupernova: "But, non-GMO crops on both sides of the property line can mingle as well. Steps are taken to avoid harvesting seeds from places where it is likely they will cross."
edward: "Oh you cannot expect a farmer to do THAT!"

THEN, you throw the rice thing in there which is a different thing completely. I was not arguing about rice and I will not.
edward
#51
Nov7-12, 08:40 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by Averagesupernova View Post
Actually I was sad to see the prop 37 thread closed.
-
Post #27 is CLEARLY about seeds blowing around.
-
Yes, it is my assumption. The point is that you are very aware of cross-pollination but it appears to me that you don't see that it should be an issue for the guy that makes his living raising the crop.
-
I have taken the liberty to exaggerate the following but felt it was necessary to get my point across. Your attitude about cross-pollination has appeared to me like this:
edward: "Holy cow we can't have these GMO and non-GMO crops next to each other, they will mingle!"
Averagesupernova: "But, non-GMO crops on both sides of the property line can mingle as well. Steps are taken to avoid harvesting seeds from places where it is likely they will cross."
edward: "Oh you cannot expect a farmer to do THAT!"

THEN, you throw the rice thing in there which is a different thing completely. I was not arguing about rice and I will not.

OHH good lordy I was blaming you for the seed blowing around bit when you were actually responding to someone else's post. You have my sincere apology. My age is showing.

Here is a good read on the court case and I agree that it does look like Bowman tried to scam the system. Now he is trying to change the definition of everything. Yet a lot of people wonder if the system (patent infringement after the fact) was right in the first place

http://farmprogress.com/blogs-suprem...seed-case-3752


As far as the cross pollination goes it is actually a growing problem. (no pun intended) There is a big market for organic crops and it is difficult to grow them without cross contamination.

Organic farmers do have rights too.

Monsanto's patent has expired on roundup and the patent on several GMO crops is coming up in 2014. Since weeds resistant to roundup are now a problem they actually have several new GMO crops ready. So does Bayer AG. Dow does actually want to market 2- 4 D resistant GMO
crops.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83N04I20120424

Even as the 2-4 D GMO crops are being developed I read that 2-4D resistant weeds have already been found.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0816151812.htm

Both Monsanto and Bayer AG have new herbicides for their crops.

What I am wondering is, where does this all end? There is no silver bullet. How many generations of chemicals will we spray on the soil until nothing will grow on it but soap bubbles?

I still think that the rice link was appropriate.
OmCheeto
#52
Nov7-12, 08:51 PM
PF Gold
OmCheeto's Avatar
P: 1,434
This reminds me of a thread when I first arrived at PF:

And, then, much later, Monsanto, who claims to always invent new seeds, had the cheek to steal an old Indian wheat variety and patent it as an invention. That was struck down in a four-month legal battle in the European patent office.
My apologies if this is a bit off topic, but that was a good, and enlightening thread, as should be all PF threads.

This thread strikes me as kind of whiny. Kind of like the last four years.

-------------------------------
ps. I hope edward is a PF friend of mine. He's a freakin' genius, IMHO.
Averagesupernova
#53
Nov8-12, 10:07 AM
P: 2,530
Quote Quote by edward View Post
What I am wondering is, where does this all end? There is no silver bullet. How many generations of chemicals will we spray on the soil until nothing will grow on it but soap bubbles?

I still think that the rice link was appropriate.
If you have been paying attention to all of this as long as I and others I know have then you would have asked this question about where it will end 30 years ago or more. Weeds have been developing resistance to herbicide since herbicides first came out. Most of us knew when Roundup ready crops became available that they were not the magic silver bullet. However, it was the best system most farmers had ever seen concerning weed control. Roundup is still quite effective on most weeds and will continue to be sprayed as long as it is effective. Then there is the issue of species shift. What that means is one weed is wiped out but another one takes it's place since that competition is no longer there. You may say that it shouldn't be an issue if Roundup actually kills everything. Guess what? It never has killed everything. There are some plants with shiny/waxy leaves that Roundup has always had trouble controlling. I get the feeling that you assume that all of a sudden this has become a problem when it has really been an issue for many years.
nitsuj
#54
Nov8-12, 12:36 PM
P: 1,098
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Monsanto makes great products that help people and make money. It is ridiculous to call them evil.
They sure do!

I would also guess their net "winnings" from litigation is a very small component of their net income.

In other words their business model isn't to entrap farmers into patent infringement, that'd be evil a poor practice & self defeating.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Genetically Modified Foods Biology 13
Oil from genetically-modified organisms General Discussion 55
Genetically modified bodies General Discussion 0
Genetically Modified Food Biology 4
Genetically Modified Organisms Biology 33