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

51–60 of 225 posts

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#51

Post by huxley »

skosuri wrote: post #35
wheaties wrote: post #5

Good for them. I've never met a company that could sue you because a honey bee or some other naturally event that has been occurring for hundreds of years happened. To that I'm referring to Monsato's practice of suing farmers who haven't used their seed variety having their fields cross pollinated with another farmer's fields who is using Monato's seed products. Really?! Ugh.

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.

To be a bit more accurate, Schmeiser's Canola field was contaminated by his neighbour's plants. Schmeiser saved the seed and mixed it with his own hybrid, so his own plants inherited the Roundup Ready gene from the contaminated seed.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#52

Post by yock »

sp332 wrote: post #42
yock wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does anyone make a bad business arrangement? Farmers aren't the first entrepreneurs to misunderstand the limitations placed on them by contract, or to accept those limitations in exchange for fast liquidity.

Monsanto has genetically-modified (and patented) crops that produce 2x or more per acre of land. Sometimes they're the only way to make land profitable.

To me, that sounds like a market problem. I routinely pay more than twice the going rate for standard produce precisely because I recognize the problem cheap produce presents. I'm not suggesting that most people would make the same decision, but then most people aren't aware of the legal battles occurring in the fields where that food was grown.

Eventually, something must give. Either cheap, GMO food will prevail (likely) or it'll fall (unlikely). Either situation will result in much higher food prices, either from more expensive farming methods or from companies like Monsanto being at liberty to extract more from the consumers who now have no alternatives.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#53

Post by Tichy »

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…

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond - 100 years is not really proven sustainability yet...

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#54

Post by bobbo3 »

stevoski wrote: post #6

This article makes some rather terrible claims. I've never heard of readersupportednews.org before. Are there similar articles in well-known, respectable publications? (Note: I'm not claiming the site is disreputable, I've just never heard of the site and want to read more on sites (on in publications) I know.)

Pesticide is a leading cause of suicide.

(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2006/np24/en/index...)

Farming is, in some countries, a high risk occupation for suicide.

(http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resfarmers.html)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_suicides_in_India)

I agree that the hyperbole of the article is weird.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#55

Post by johnchristopher »

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…

Parent is sweden if I remember correctly. Farm subsiding is a thorny issue in UE and there seems to be some debate in sweden about it http://www.thelocal.se/7443/20070529/

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#57

Post by jaysonelliot »

skosuri wrote: post #35
wheaties wrote: post #5

Good for them. I've never met a company that could sue you because a honey bee or some other naturally event that has been occurring for hundreds of years happened. To that I'm referring to Monsato's practice of suing farmers who haven't used their seed variety having their fields cross pollinated with another farmer's fields who is using Monato's seed products. Really?! Ugh.

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, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David said.

"What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers, trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop."

In fact, in Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing "an agreement" with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to come on their land and test for seed contamination.

Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two months after that letter was sent. What does that say to you?

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#58

Post by skosuri »

huxley wrote: post #51
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.

To be a bit more accurate, Schmeiser's Canola field was contaminated by his neighbour's plants. Schmeiser saved the seed and mixed it with his own hybrid, so his own plants inherited the Roundup Ready gene from the contaminated seed.

This is his claim. It doesn't make much sense. Why would he spray his entire crop with roundup? Even if it were true, he still knowingly was getting RoundUp Ready seeds to avoid paying Monsanto. That's somewhat like saying: "I found this copy of adobe photoshop on this used computer.. I copied it and sold it; since i didn't originally purchase it, I'm not responsible."

A quote from the Canadian Supreme Court: "Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000."

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#60

Post by peterwwillis »

Create wrote: post #31

"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement." Dow provide…

So Vietnam is opposed to a company sponsoring the Olympics because they made a product that the USA used to deform and kill their people. How does that make sense? Shouldn't they be angry at the country that actually dumped the chemicals on them? If somebody gets a gun and shoots you, you sue the guy who shot you, not the company that made the bullets. (Well, unless you just want more money, which in our litigious society might actually work for you...)
Post reply on HN