Posted on 02/18/2002 1:11:23 PM PST by World'sGoneInsane
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:37:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) -- A farming practice with roots in ancient times has led to at least two dozen pending lawsuits. Farmers have long planted fields with seed saved from the previous year. But agribusiness giant Monsanto objects to farmers using its high-tech product, which sells for a premium price, for free.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
It happens every time, short term profits thinking=long term loss. Folks won't believe it until it hits them. The farmer knew he was buying their crap, he saved the few dollars, phooie. Gardeners in the US lost 3/4ths of the diversity of their seeds last year when one mexican company stopped producing them, and those who didn't save, or who only planted hybrids, are SOL now, have to start from scratch and re buy their seed.
To ME, just me, it's better to do your own selective harvesting and seed saving and 'breeding" that way, every year you get a crop that's more suited to your exact land and practices, because you pick and choose 'the best" every year to save for seed.
Abstinance is the only 100% effective way to prevent pollination with patented life forms. The collapse of morallity in America is to blame. We did'nt have these problems in my grandfathers time.
Prude hat off.
The fact is, Round-up Ready seeds have been an incredible boon not only to farmers but to the environment. They eliminate the need for several tillage passes (saving fuel and not exposing topsoil to wind and rain erosion) and eliminating the need for some other types of herbicide which were truly nasty.
No government engineered this seed; no commune, no charity, no college, no farmers' co-operative, no do-gooder of any sort. Monansanto spent Zillions genetically engineering this seed, which they would not have done without a reasonable expectation of a profit. Monsanto holds a patent; reproducing the seed is no different than reproducing any other article in which someone holds a patent.
By the way, unless the bags in New Jersy differ from the bags I've seen, Monsanto's assertion of rights is plainly stated on the article at the time and point of purchase.
I only buy the Santas in the dead of winter... I grow my own heirloom tomatoes in the summer, and save the seeds...
The Flag of Jordan
Flag Description: three equal horizontal bands of black (top, the Abbassid Caliphate of Islam), white (the Ummayyad Caliphate of Islam), and green (the Fatimid Caliphate of Islam) with a red isosceles triangle (representing the Great Arab Revolt of 1916) based on the hoist side bearing a small white seven-pointed star symbolizing the seven verses of the opening Sura (Al-Fatiha) of the Holy Koran; the seven points on the star represent faith in One God, humanity, national spirit, humility, social justice, virtue, and aspirations
http://www.ncbuy.com/reference/flags/jo-flag.html
History of the flag
The Palestinian flag represents all Palestinian Arab aspirations regardless of party. It belongs to the Arab Revolt grouping of Arab flags and is a deliberate copy of the Jordanian flag (minus the star), which presumably represents the historical link to 1920-23 when Palestine and Transjordan were one territory. I think the flag was adopted in 1964 at the creation of the PNC and PLO, possibly a little later. It was definitely in use by 1974 when the Arab League declared the PLO the sole representative of all Palestinians and the UN granted the PLO observer status. There was no single Palestinian authority prior to 1964 that could have created a flag.
http://www.flags-by-swi.com/fotw/flags/palestin.html
Patent Law vs The Laws of Nature, who do you think will win?
Huh? What will stifle capitalism is if companies are put out of business because they are unable to recover their huge investments, and then make profits, on the proprietary technologies they develop. Without patenting, licensing, tradmarking, and copyrighting, their proprietary technologies becomes community property. Sounds like socialism to me.
They don't have to sign the agreement. Nobody's forcing them to use Monsanto's Roundy Ready seed products. They use it because they can earn more per acre planted.
I bet they got guys going around infesting fields on purpose, too, great way to steal land and make everyone work for FOODCO intergalactic.
I'm gonna have to watch it on this thread, this whole subject is close to me, and I can go ballistic on it.
SCHMEISER. In 1998 Monsanto laid a lawsuit on me with no prior warning. They said that I had infringed on their patent by growing genetically altered canola — Monsanto’s Roundup Ready — without without a license, and therefore infringed on their patent.ACRES U.S.A. Had you ever purchased Roundup Ready canola?
SCHMEISER. I had never purchased Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola. I never so much as went to a meeting or knew a representative. I had never received an invitation to come to one of Monsanto’s sales meetings. I didn’t even know what it was all about. Still, they launched the lawsuit and said I had infringed on their patent. They claimed that I had illegally obtained their seed and they made the statement right over the CBC, our national radio of Canada, that I had either stolen it or illegally obtained it.
I knew that we were using our own seed. If it was now contaminated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready, then they had actually destroyed 50 years of my work. So we decided to fight Monsanto. It eventually went to pretrial and in those hearings Monsanto admitted they had no record that anyone had ever said to them that I had obtained a seed illegally. But they said it didn’t matter, the fact that there was some GMO seed on my land — no matter how it got there — meant that I was guilty of infringing on their patent.
ACRES U.S.A. And still it went to trial?
SCHMEISER. Yes, in June of 2000, and that was with the Federal Court of Canada because patent cases come under the Federal law. I wish it would have been held under Provincial Court where I could have had a jury with farmers who understand what farming is all about, but since it is patent law, I had to use the Federal court.
ACRES U.S.A. The judge ruled against you?
SCHMEISER. At the trial the judge ruled on three or four points that are very important and that affect farmers all over the world. A focal point of concern are property rights of farmers to be able to use their own seed throughout the world. He ruled that it didn’t matter how Monsanto’s genetically altered canola got on to my land. The judge went on to specify that if it blew in by the wind, cross-pollinated by flood, birds, bees, animals, fell off farmer’s trucks, or migrated from the neighbor who may be growing it in the field next to mine — even if it blows into my field against my wishes — it does not matter, I infringed on their patent. Number two, he ruled that if my field is crosspollinated with Monsanto’s genetically altered Roundup Ready Canola, my conventional plants would become their property.
ACRES U.S.A. Even though you had no desire to have any Monsanto plant product in your fields?
SCHMEISER. Yes. The judge also ruled that all of my profits from my canola crop in 1998 must go to Monsanto, even from fields that were not tested. He ruled that because I was a seed saver and a seed developer and was using my own seed, there was probability that there could be seed in my other fields — even though some fields were not tested and some tested negative for contamination. The judge ruled that my profits all go to Monsanto because there was a probability, and that is the exact word that he used, that there could be some altered canola in those fields. You can see what happens now to any farmer in the world who wants use his own seed. All Monsanto has to do is to contaminate field. They only have to put their seed into an environment in any country, any region, and if it contaminates a neighbor’s crop, that neighbor can no longer grow that crop without a Monsanto license, permission, or paying a technology charge.
ACRES U.S.A. What are some examples of how they investigate?
SCHMEISER. In their brochures they advertise to farmers that they think their neighbor might be growing Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola without a license, they should turn him in to Monsanto. If you do that, and if the allegation is confirmed, then the farmer who has turned him in will receive a leather jacket from Monsanto. When Monsanto receives this tip or rumor, they send out two of their investigating officers, or gene police, whatever you want to call them, to a farmer’s house, and they will say they have heard that you are growing Monsanto’s product without license. There are two words they always use: tip or rumor. The farmer will say, no, and tell them what sort of canola they are growing. In the typical scenario, as I understand it, the Monsanto people then will say something to the effect of, “You are lying, we know you are lying, we will get you if you don’t come clean, we will destroy you, you won’t have a farm left.” These are the threats that are going on in a free society. You can imagine what it does to that farmer. He wonders which of his neighbors did this to him. Suddenly you have the breakdown of the social fabric of our rural communities. In my opinion, Monsanto is trying to divide farmer against farmer
complaining about roundup being blown onto their chemical free crops from other farmers fields?
You know the truth.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! SOME OF THE REPLIES IN THIS THREAD SOUND AN AWFUL LOT LIKE A BUNCH OF WHINING LIBERALS!!!
I find it interesting that nobody is questioning the accuracy of the article. Remember folks, THE LIBERAL MEDIA HAVE AN AGENDA, and part of that agenda is to BASH CORPORATIONS AND CAPITALISM. I suspect Monsanto folks might have some concerns about the way the article presents the situation.
Read the article before starting to shill for Montsano.
can we continue to let it reproduce with other cows with its seed?
I've thought the same thing myself! If they haven't already started, they will. And I'm sure of it.
Not true...our neighboring farmer got a far worse yield using RR Soybeans.
Both Monsanto and Good agree that the south Jersey farmer never signed a technology agreement listing prohibitions on the seed. Good said the salesman who sold him the seed never told him it could not be replanted.
Monsanto admits there was no agreement. Their salesman screwed up. They have no case, but refuse to settle. Arrogance!
Except that I believe the restriction is written on the packaging, and probably on literature inside the package. This is no different than the license agreement on software that is packed inside the box. Purchasers don't sign agreements when they purchase the software, but they are still bound by the software's restrictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.