5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion • Hacker News Board

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#141

Post by andylei » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:00 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #133

jaysonelliot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rather presumptive to assume that wheaties is talking about the case you just pulled from Wikipedia. It only took one Google search to find a case describing exactly what wheaties described: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html The Runyons say they signed no agreements, and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm. "Pollination occurs, win…

He didn't just plant Roundup-ready seeds. He took advantage of the fact that they were Roundup-ready. The way Roundup works is, the seeds confer resistance in crops to an herbicide. The herbicide is easily obtainable and cheap; the only thing interesting about it is that if you plant special Roundup-ready seeds, you can easily use it to kill weeds without killing crops.

for those that don't understand the implications of this:

the runyons claim that the seeds got there accidentally, and imply that they had no knowledge of the seeds' origins. given that they also sprayed Roundup on their crops, the claim just makes no sense. if your crops are not "Roundup-ready", Roundup will kill your crops along with the weeds.

if it was really the wind that blew in some seeds, then they never would have sprayed Roundup on their crop.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#142

Post by crikli » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #34

crikli wrote: post #29

The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other…

The lawsuit is in Brazil. The claims about people killing themselves are from India. So U.S. corn prices probably don't quite factor in. Also, if you are importing diesel and fertilizer, you aren't quite self sustaining (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I like cheap and available food, but the popular idea of sustainability is about accounting for and balancing flows of energy, not keeping land productive).

I'm using the word sustainable in the dictionary sense of the word rather than in the context in which it has become a rather vaguely defined buzzword.

We've(1) been harvesting crops off of the same ground every year for over 100 years. Thanks to technology the yields from the ground have increased every single year while the adjusted price of grain has dropped over the long term. Yes, we use fertilizer and diesel that are of course brought in from other areas as there is no other way to farm thousands of acres.

People that don't farm don't get how much we care about the land. It's not just some abstract cause temporarily adopted, it's what our father's father's passed to them and what we hope to pass to our sons and daughters. We want to use the smallest possible amount of fuel, fertilizers, and herb/pesticides because that stuff costs a lot of money and farming is a low margin operation (the last couple years notwithstanding). Technologies like Roundup-ready soybeans mean that we take fewer passes with a tractor over the same crop row, reducing the use of herb/pesticides and fuel, and dramatically reducing soil compaction.

(1) I make no income from farming, although I grew up working in the fields. I own a software company and I'm married into the family I'm referencing with the inclusive pronouns.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#143

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #34

crikli wrote: post #29

The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other…

The lawsuit is in Brazil. The claims about people killing themselves are from India. So U.S. corn prices probably don't quite factor in. Also, if you are importing diesel and fertilizer, you aren't quite self sustaining (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I like cheap and available food, but the popular idea of sustainability is about accounting for and balancing flows of energy, not keeping land productive).

[deleted]

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#144

Post by crikli » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #76

crikli wrote: post #29

The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other…

Why do everyone keep on insisting that people who hate Monsanto must have watched some movie? Monsanto has bugged the hell out of me for years and I've never even heard of that movie.

Food Inc is what really whipped up the anti-Monsanto rhetoric; it's uncommon for me to interact with someone about agriculture and food without the film coming up.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#145

Post by andylei » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:14 PM UTC

jaysonelliot wrote: post #69

skosuri wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto, and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)

I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) d…

look, if you think a news article quoting Moe Parr about someone suing him is convincing evidence, i'm not really sure if you'll believe this, but here's some evidence indicating that Moe Parr is in the wrong:

this is the court injunction against Moe Parr's seed cleaning activities: http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Cor...

i hope your mind isn't already made up

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#146

Post by crikli » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:16 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #46

sp332 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sustainable energy sources. Sustainable farming is different.

My reading was that the comment meant "We're still here", not "We are among the best in the world at minimizing inputs".

I meant both. See my response above but minimizing inputs is the core motivation of most of our family's technology and infrastructure investments. GPS integration alone has allowed us to use the minimal amount of fertilizer as we're able to use historical data to know which parts of the field need which amounts of what.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#147

Post by crikli » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:22 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #40

crikli wrote: post #29

The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other…

Nobody is killing themselves because you're being subsidized by the American taxpayer to grow lots of corn. Monsanto is a nasty corporation, but their nastiness is fueled by government policy that allows them to leverage patents and practices to make a commodity product like corn as profitable to them as pharmaceuticals are to Genentech or AstraZenica. It's great for you now, and results in cheap food prices for the…

We don't accept subsidies and would absolutely love to see them go away completely. They're doing nothing but sustaining inefficient farming practices and keeping afloat farmers that are quite simply bad at what they do.

I don't want to get too off into the HCFC rabbit trail, but I have yet to see any research that indicates anything other than correlative evidence between the ingestion of C6H1206 derived from corn. If you have access to research that proves causality I'd love to see it.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#148

Post by planetguy » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:23 PM UTC

elemenohpee wrote: post #122

planetguy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader? Analogy: someone accidentally drops a backpack containing DVDs in my front yard. Am I now licensed to make and sell copies of the content on those DVDs? Anyway, your argument is with the Canadian Supreme Court, not with Monsanto.

The difference is that DVDs do not make copies of themselves. Schmeiser simply used the seeds that ended up on his land (as far as I know, I don't know all the details of the case). Wouldn't the analogy then be, should you be able to watch the DVDs that ended up in your front yard?

>Schmeiser simply used the seeds that ended up on his land (as far as I know, I don't know all the details of the case).

It only takes a few minutes to find out the details of the case. He didn't just accidentally get some Monsanto seeds mixed in with his own -- instead, he noticed some Roundup-resistant plants growing on his land, collected seeds from them, planted them in a test field, and then separated the Roundup-resistant from the non-Roundup-resistant strains by... well, spraying 'em with Roundup. In other words, he went to some effort to deliberately separate and reproduce the specific Roundup-resistant strain which happened to wind up on his land.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#149

Post by planetguy » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:26 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #140

planetguy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader? Analogy: someone accidentally drops a backpack containing DVDs in my front yard. Am I now licensed to make and sell copies of the content on those DVDs? Anyway, your argument is with the Canadian Supreme Court, not with Monsanto.

I'm not so sure why people are trying to make analogies between copyright law pertaining to software and patent law pertaining to genetic material. All of these analogies seem so strained that they lose all their power.

OK, I can make it a patent analogy if you like:

A plane crashes on your land. You reverse-engineer the jet engine and start selling your own jet engines.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#150

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 5:31 PM UTC

crikli wrote: post #142

maxerickson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lawsuit is in Brazil. The claims about people killing themselves are from India. So U.S. corn prices probably don't quite factor in. Also, if you are importing diesel and fertilizer, you aren't quite self sustaining (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I like cheap and available food, but the popular idea of sustainability is about accounting for and balancing flows of energy, not keeping land productive).

I'm using the word sustainable in the dictionary sense of the word rather than in the context in which it has become a rather vaguely defined buzzword. We've(1) been harvesting crops off of the same ground every year for over 100 years. Thanks to technology the yields from the ground have increased every single year while the adjusted price of grain has dropped over the long term. Yes, we use fertilizer and diesel th…

I do understand that farmers are very motivated to minimize inputs (but many of them are also stubborn and risk averse, because they are just people).

I suppose my point is that you are asking for a fight that I don't think is worth fighting when you use it the way you did (and I see merit to the fuzzy buzzword idea that encourages people to be more mindful of their impacts).