Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

readersupportednews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 225 posts

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#161

Post by JamisonM »

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…

Others have taken issue with a 100 year sample size for a definition of "sustainability in practice" but I would not. My family bought its first Diesel tractor quite a bit less than 100 years ago, diskers to seed in the 1950's (I think), 4WD articulating tractors to pull them in the 1970's, and air drills in the 1990's. Started using nitrogen fertilizer instead of manure in the late 1960's. We started using herbicides in the 1970's, insecticides in the 1990's (though never much of them) and fungicides in the 1990's. GMO crops in the 1990's as well. I think we started growing Canola in the late eighties or early 90's and only started growing Soybeans in the last few years.

I am wondering which of the farm practices engaged in right now, in 2012, in any way resemble the "sustaining" of a practice from 100 years ago?

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#162

Post by neuroelectronic »

omonra wrote: post #102
Maxious wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[Agent Orange] was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical."

And what does THAT have to do with THIS story?

I guess we'll just wait and find out...

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#163

Post by protomyth »

Symmetry wrote: post #156
protomyth wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea that someone can pollute your property and then charge you for it is a grievous violation of property rights. It is not the patent I object to, it is the idea that a polluter can "corrupt" my crop and then charge me for it.

I also think the idea that you can sue someone just for seeds that blew in is absurd. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened. In each case where someone was sued by Monsanto they were alleged to have deliberately tried to save only the GM seeds. And of course they denied it and said that it wasn't deliberate, but what they were charged with was deliberate patent violation.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... has some cases of their lawsuit fun

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#164

Post by skosuri »

throwaway8675 wrote: post #95
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.)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to disclose that you work for George Church's lab, and that George Church is a Monsanto Life Sciences Research Fellow.

Oh yes, obvious conflict and I should have disclosed this major point. I didn't even know it, but that does not excuse me. George Church was an LSRF fellow (independent non-profit fellowship), which are named after the donation company. Thus George was sponsored indirectly by Monsanto in 1984 for working as a post-doc in Gail Martin's lab working on embryogenesis and development. http://www.lsrf.org/alumni/alumni84.htm

I was 5 years old.

Obvious conflict. Sorry for not disclosing.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#165

Post by ChuckMcM »

fleitz wrote: post #159
ChuckMcM wrote: post #152

Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto (which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented). This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which is very much up in the air. The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or companies, to patent genetic sequences?" On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the cla…

"herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability without infringing the patent." I don't think that's true, immediately I'm thinking of enzymes that could cleave the herbicide, or making plants resistant to a different herbicide. Monsanto is primarily a maker of herbicides not GM crops, GM crops…

An excellent point. That would certainly be a point in Monsanto's favor. I am not sure I could say the same about the BRCA1 gene for breast cancer diagnosis though. That too is patented. Which reinforces for me how complex this issue is. We often discuss software patents (and as "practitioner of the art" :-) I can relate.) but I am not a biologist, much less a geneticist.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#166

Post by skosuri »

JPKab wrote: post #105
skosuri wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.

Thanks to the work of an anonymous user researching who you work for at Harvard, you have been revealed to work at a lab which receives funding from Monsanto. I'm not saying this discredits you, but you should state this up front. I have sympathy for geneticists who have to deal with the anti-GM knee jerk reactionaries, but Monsanto tramples on constitutional rights of small farmers who don't have the legal resources…

To my knowledge, we don't receive funding from Monsanto, nor do we do much plant research that I know of. It's a big lab.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#167

Post by fleitz »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #57
skosuri wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.

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…

That's not a lawsuit, I can't find a suit filed anywhere by Monsanto against the Runyons.

Also if theses seeds blow all over the place contaminating everything then all monsanto would have to do is stand on the side of the road and wait for a seed to blow over. No need to trespass.

Link to court documents not Monsanto PR or GMO protestor PR. What you find in court is a lot different than what GMO protestors say and is actually a lot closer to what Monsanto says IMHO. But again, ignore the Monsanto PR and just look to the court docs which contain facts as determined by a judge and not hearsay.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#168

Post by JamisonM »

tptacek wrote: post #135
JamisonM wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think winning is considered important because of the mistaken presumption that this has some bearing on how Monsanto is conducting itself or the guilt or innocence of the farmers involved. The unfortunate truth is that Monsanto will probably never lose such a case, they will settle or drop a case that they think they have any chance of losing. The legal system in most of the world is such that just threats and inti…

Ok, then a good starting point would be citations of cases that Monsanto brought against farmers and then dropped. You'd think farmers would make a lot of noise about those, but either way, those cases should be discoverable.

Monstanto's own website says they have sued 145 times and only gone to trial 11 times. In the past I know they have indicated that they have settled more than 500 cases out of court but I can not find a good citation for that.

I personally believe that Monsanto is probably correct in most of their accusations against farmers but the imbalance of power that exists between the two parties means that Monsanto does have something of a free hand to do as it likes regardless of whether it is in the right or not. I am not from the United States but given what I know of the structure of the business down there if you can't use any of their products you will have a lot of difficulty continuing to earn a livelihood as a conventional farmer.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#169

Post by Spooky23 »

crikli wrote: post #147
Spooky23 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't know that HFCS is "bad" vs. cane sugar. My only dig here is that generally speaking, eating alot of calories makes you gain weight.

The US government decided at one time that lowering the cost of food proportionally would increase overall prosperity by giving consumers more buying power. The unintended side effect of that policy is that heavily sweetened prepared foods are now cheap and ingrained into culture.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#170

Post by fleitz »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #165
fleitz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability without infringing the patent." I don't think that's true, immediately I'm thinking of enzymes that could cleave the herbicide, or making plants resistant to a different herbicide. Monsanto is primarily a maker of herbicides not GM crops, GM crops…

An excellent point. That would certainly be a point in Monsanto's favor. I am not sure I could say the same about the BRCA1 gene for breast cancer diagnosis though. That too is patented. Which reinforces for me how complex this issue is. We often discuss software patents (and as "practitioner of the art" :-) I can relate.) but I am not a biologist, much less a geneticist.

Yeah there are definitely points on each side. I wonder too how difficult this stuff is to skilled people, I wonder if there is a biohacker news where people laugh about the triviality of making something resistant to round up, like the triviality of 1 click purchasing.
Post reply on HN