"Intellectual Property" rears its ugly head - Monsanto patented soybeans

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/national/02SEED.html?pagewanted=print&position=

TUPELO, Miss., Oct. 30 — Homan McFarling has been farming here all his life, growing mostly soybeans along with a little corn. After each harvest, he puts some seed aside.

"Every farmer that ever farmed has saved some of his seed to plant again," he said.

In 1998, Mr. McFarling bought 1,000 bags of genetically altered soybean seeds, and he did what he had always done. But the seeds, called Roundup Ready, are patented. When Monsanto, which holds the patent, learned what Mr. McFarling had sown, it sued him in federal court in St. Louis for patent infringement and was awarded $780,000.

The company calls the planting of saved seed piracy, and it says it has won millions of dollars from farmers in lawsuits and settlements in such cases. Mr. McFarling's is the first to reach a federal appeals court, which will consider how the law should reconcile patented food with a practice as old as farming itself.

If the appeals court rules against him, said Mr. McFarling, 61, he will be forced into bankruptcy and early retirement.

"It doesn't look right for them to have a patent on something that you can grow yourself," he said.

Janice Armstrong, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the seed. "We need to protect our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next wave of products," she said. (...)

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I wonder what happens if one gets hold of some beans and plants it without signing no steenkin' "technology agreement"?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. They are simply now doing in America what they did world wide

to put other farmers out of business.

[KittyWampus]

74. Actually, American Farmers HAVE Property Rights

to begin with... so it's a little harder to kill them off here than it is around the world.

Monsato is in the business of making a "Master Race" of seeds...

It ultimately will not work and the repercussions will most likely be devastating.

[E_Zapata]

2. Let me finish Ms. Armstrong's quote for her........

We need to protect our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next wave of products," she said. 'SO WE CAN DECIDE WHO EATS, WHO DIES SOON, VERY, VERY SOON. BAHAHAHAAHA'

This is one fucked up world we have created. Such a great nation we are.....the big white savior america.


Nothingshocks: don't you think it's a bit more evil than just taking out an industry? this is about controlling LIFE on the planet. evil.

[soothsayer]

3. I hate monsanto (monstersanto) but i think they were in the right in this

case, from a legal standpoint. I think they make farmers sign contracts or something that they can't keep the seeds to resow.

Now, in OTHER cases, where evil monsanto's vile gm crops have infiltrated other farmers natural fields, and monsatan tries to sue the innocent farmers for that act of nature (duh)---in THOSE cases I think monsanto is wrong.

[AP]

10. Monsanto is very wrong, from a legal standpoint.

It's a contract of adhesion.

A contract drafted by one party and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis or with little opportunity for the offeree to bargain or alter the provisions. Contracts of adhesion typically contain long boilerplate provisions in small type, written in language difficult for ordinary consumers to understand. Insurance policies are usually considered contracts of adhesion because they are drafted by the insurer and offered without the consumer being able to make material changes. As a result, courts generally rule in favor of an insured if there is an ambiguity in policy provisions.

http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/contract-of-adhesion.htm

These farmers have been doing business a certain way for centuries. They don't know about IP law and probably never hire lawyers to review these contracts. Monsanto patents a seed, makes sure that 90% of the seeds they sell are this kind of seed, give a farmer a contract with lots of fine print. They know the farmer doesn't know the implications. They wait for the farmer to do what he has been doing every year. They sue them to make an example to others.

They probably also know that their patent might not stand up to a challenge, but they know that no farmer operating on tiny margins is going to finance a expensive legal battle to challenge the patent's validity. And even if the farmer does, Monsanto will remove the case to a jurisdiction with RW judges (if it isn't in one alread).

[ElsewheresDaughter]

80. saving seed is a mans right! ...period...monsanto is INSIDIOUS!!!!

[Brian Sweat]

4. Although I am very weary of GM crops, I have been on the fence.

This has made up my mind. Patenting a verity and making farmers by all of their seeds from you is evil.

[Walt Starr]

5. I sold my soul to the company store

Yep, can't be buyin' no seeds from nowhere else, now. You has to buy your seeds from the company store. When we get ya in debt so deep ya can't do nuttin' else, you'll buy your equipment (at inflated prices) from the company store too, because we'll be the only ones to give ya credit on it.

[MuseRider]

6. This happened with corn too.

It caused many to just stop planting it. With the odd weather we have been having for the last several years the crops are burning in the fields. How many years can someone who is not paid well for their crop afford to so this? Before there was always enough seed from years of holding enough for planting. You pay a load of money to buy their seed, plant it, care for it, it dies in the field, you do not make any money (you lose) and now have no seed for next year. Sounds like they are trying to get rid of the small farms doesn't it?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. "Intellectual Property" is a propaganda term, don't use it

We are talking about patents and copyrights. "Intellectual property" is a term thought up in PR departments to complain that a corporations "civil rights" are being harmed if their "intellectual property" is being threatened.

Patents and copyrights are granted by the state, as an aid to creators - there is NO right to a copyright and NO right to a patent.

The doublespeak has to stop.

[el_gato]

9. your right, good point

thanks for making it

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Point taken

I just put the misleading term in quotes. Didn't take it off because the title also mention patents.

The grouping of patents, copyright and trademarks under the term "intellectual property" would be just another harmless definition if not for the word "property", which makes it sound like a sacred right.

Me, I see (or rather feel) this "Intellectual Property" growing extremism as a monster that threatens to engulf all possibility of progress and freedom in human society -- it may very well evoke negative connotations (owning thought? Yikes!) instead of positive, over time.

By the way, couldn't the most effective way to fight GM foods be to deny them patent rights?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. I'm glad you posted this thread

I read the NYT article yesterday - Monsanto has chosen this one farmer as their "example" and they have even bought property next to his farm to spy on him! They are harrassing him everyday, for doing what farmers do - save seeds and plant them.

This isn't a free market, this isn't capitalism, this is plutocracy. I think Monsanto should IMMEDIATELY have their charter revoked, and the company sold off piece by piece. Why the HELL should the US recognize this group of cons?

But sure, failing revoking their charter, we should AT LEAST not enforce their patent. Patents were meant to give an incentive to create, and these corporations have turned that on it's head.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Thank No More Mister Nice Blog

At http://nomoremister.blogspot.com :pals:

[Hammie]

54. Wrong

Intellectual property is knowlege that you develop. Your IP can be protected by patent, or by secrecy. It is not propoganda. It is real knowledge that costs real money to develop. I've worked for years in R&D, believe me when I tell you that if you paid the bills on these projects, you wouldn't just give the knowledge away either. Unless the fruits of the development generate income, you will be out of the development business in no time flat.

Stealing knowledge is no more defensible than stealing anything else of value.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. We are not against copyrights, patents, trademarks or trade secrets.

We are against calling them PROPERTY. They're NOT. Unless you think the house you own should revert to the public domain in X years. It's in the United States Constitition (I'm assuming you're an US citizen). Look it up.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

63. You cannot "steal" knowledge

If I "steal" knowledge from you, have you lost any of that knowledge? You can't really call that stealing now can you.

If I use your patent, than perhaps I am guilty of patent infringment. If I copy a song for a friend, perhaps I am guilty of unauthorized music listening. Perhaps it's illegal. It's not stealing.

The fact is "property" has always meant physical property, and property rights don't and can't apply to intangibles, hence all the problems we have had lately.

[Hammie]

68. Of course you can.

People steal knowlege all the time. Of course you're right that if you steal knowledge that I've developed I still have that knowledge. What you seem to be willfully overlooking is that the knowledge wasn't developed in a vacuum. Somebody paid to develop it in order to profit by it, usually by being better at providing some product or service. What you steal when you steal this kind of knowlege is the competitive advantage, and or profit, that it was intended to confer.

From Mirriam Webster Online:

1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>

What about this doesn't apply to IP?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

73. you're confusing the issue

You are making a pragmatic judgement that we need patents and copyrights to reward creators. I don't necessarily disagree.

But you cannot steal intangible "things" like knowledge. Stealing means you take something from someone else - it means they don't have something anymore. Property rights are about physical items. Saying that you can "steal" knowledge is ridiculous. If you name your child "Jennifer" and I think it's a great name and name my child "Jennifer" have I stolen anything from you? You can call me a copycat, but not a thief.

How much money people put into developing ideas is irrelevant to whether or not something is theft. That being said, I think that patents and copyrights, when used for business regulation, are just fine. When they start to interfere with freedom of speech and other human rights, they are not.

[Hammie]

75. Lets go through it slowly this time

Stealing is taking things that don't belong to you without permission.

The test is not whether I've been deprived of the thing. The test is whether you took it without permission.

The test applies to objects as well as knowledge.

Frankly, I don't know how it could be any simpler.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

76. no one is "taking" anything

That's the point. If I learn of your business secrets, I'm not taking anything from you. I may be in violation of business regulations, but I'm not stealing, or taking, anything from anyone.

"The test is not whether I've been deprived of the thing. The test is whether you took it without permission."

If you are not deprived, nothing has been taken.

[treepig]

77. if you take my knowledge without permission

that is indeed stealing, because even though i still have that knowledge, it is less valuable - i am therefore deprived.

consider an extreme example; if everybody had the knowledge to be a neurosurgeon then, neurosurgeons would be working at minimun wage and their specialized knowledge wouldn't be a thing.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

86. what if I learn the knowledge on my own?

Then I have the same knowledge. Have I stolen it? Either way, you have been "deprived" of whatever theoretical advantage you had from the knowledge. Surely you're not saying that is "stealing" - so how is the deprivation different? Do you mean that I have "stolen" your advantage, which you know longer have? That at least is more reasonable than saying I have "stolen" something that you STILL have.

Now the question is, is your theoretical advantage property that you can own? Of course not. So the only thing you have been deprived us isn't your property anyway.

The idea of property rights cannot apply to knowledge and intangibles. That's why we have to stretch the language and make up these ridiculous examples. I'm not going along with the newspeak.

[treepig]

87. there's a huge difference if you learn something on your own

or steal it - my example of the surgeon was just to point out that dilution of knowledge diminishes its value.

consider the story of when mr. edison and his assistant were developing the electric light bulb. after yet another material failed to be suitable to serve as the filament, the assistant was discouraged but mr. edison cheerfully said "well, now we know 10,000 materials that won't work" (paraphrased of course, with the point being they were a long ways towards eliminating close to useless approaches from consideration).

ok, perhaps it was the 10,101th material that actually worked. shouldn't mr. edison deserve the commercial benefits of knowing what this material was? and if suddenly you stole this knowledge (the fruit of a huge amount of effort), although mr. edison would still be just as knowledgeable,the potential value of this knowledge to him would be cut in half because you could go ahead and start manufacturing light bulbs too. hence patent protection (which essentially is another way of saying knowledge protection).

now if you had learned this knowledge yourself (i.e., tested the 10,101 materials yourself over a period of several years and considerable expense) that's entirely different from stealing it. somehow i think you're being purposefully obtuse in your claims that knowledge can not be "stolen" - if you don't agree with the concept of private property that's one thing, but within the framework of the legal system of any western country (even the liberal ones live sweden let's say) private property does exist and should be respected (for the alternative, try doing some web searching on the "tragedy of the commons")

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

89. you keep avoiding the issue, over and over again

You are complaining that sometimes a business loses their advantages. This is of course true. You complain that sometimes a business loses its advantages "unfairly" and that can impede research. All true.

But this is where you are purposefully clouding the issue:

"if you don't agree with the concept of private property that's one thing, but within the framework of the legal system of any western country (even the liberal ones live sweden let's say) private property does exist and should be respected (for the alternative, try doing some web searching on the "tragedy of the commons")"

Of course private property exists. My shirt is my private property. If you steal it from me, I've lost it. If I copy your idea or use a name you made up or find out a business process you are using, you have lost NOTHING.

Perhaps I broke some law, perhaps I am going against business regulation, but I'm not stealing anything.

Private property is western countries has ALWAYS meant physical property. Patents and copyrights are business regulations that are sensible in my opinion. Allowing corporations to redefine words like "stealing" is not sensible.

[treepig]

90. there are numerous long-established examples of knowledge as property

going back (at least) 110 years when the coca cola's original recipe became a valuable and highly guarded secret (less so now with new coke and all that). do you really think that if you had obtained this recipe, say 80 years ago, through surreptious methods that you would not have been labeled a thief?

you seem to be fixated on physical possessions - perhaps you've spent all day sewing that shirt you mention, or maybe 20 years lovingly building your dream house brick by brick. sure, if somebody took these things that's obviously stealing. however, others put just as much effort into developing novel pieces of knowledge towards the promise of eventual commercial payback. i think that's perfectly valid under the way the economy and society are currently arranged - any anybody who steals somebody's knowledge-based resources is just as much of a thief as somebody who steals your shirt.


i agree it's a nice fantasy world where everything is shared, and shared equally and equitably, however human nature just doesn't allow this fantasy to be manifest in real life.

[Hammie]

55. Plant patents are old news.

Patent roses are a common example. Monsanto owned the rights to that specific organism (patented soybeans). The farmer violated those rights. Farmer looses. Farmer knew what he was doing, and was betting on not being found out. Sometimes you win those bets, sometimes you don't.

[el_gato]

8. where are the GM apologists like Maple in this thread?

maybe they will be along anytime now.

Monsanto sucks big time and anyone who supports bio-tech trash like this
needs to wake the fuck up.

[MrMonk]

38. It's not a "GM thread". It's a thread about business practices.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

11. It is amazing to me that Monsanto's getting away with this.

Maybe Burpees can sue Monsanto for any annual flowers that come up in Monsanto landscaping.

And, if I buy a bag of raw soybeans at the grocery store and then plant them, could I be sued?

Ho wmany degrees of seperation does Monsanto want?

[DrWeird]

12. What's the problem?

If I buy cd's or books, I can't go and make a bunch of copies of them and give them away.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

14. Seeds are grow into plants producing other seeds. By natural law.

You till the field, maintain the plants and harvest.

If you plant a CD...

You are probably better off, but I doubt you'll get any new CD's out of it.

[el_gato]

15. i guess you want monsanto to have total control of the food supply

geez

[DrWeird]

19. That doesn't even make sense.

They've got total control of the products they produce.

[AP]

22. Monsanto wants to extract more and more profit

they want to make sure they get their cut on everything grown.

It's sick. It means the end of subsistence farming, and it means the end of independant farming.

It will mean prices going up, and more power to bigger and bigger corporations.

This model has never worked in the public's favor in any industry.

Dr Weird, I believe, works for Monsanto. He/she (has claimed to be both, I believe) wrote an paper on round up.

[Zephyrbird]

47. Okay, Dr. Weird, I have to tell you something that may help.

Monsanto bought up "Holden's Foundation Seeds" which was the holder of a huge amount of genetic material that was licensed out to researchers in different companies.

It also bought Asgrow Seed Company (#1 soybean producer) DeKalb corn (#2 corn producer) and other regional companies, resulting in its grabbing approximately 85-88% of available genetic material. That means those mom and pop and smaller companies that would get leased material from Holden's or another seed company to develop regionals no longer have available to them the genetic material, narrowing the market availability and giving Monsanto an almost complete lock-down on genetics for agronomic crops (field corn, soybeans and sorghum).

They bought Asgrow and DeKalb at the same. Pioneer Seed (#1 in field corn, #2 in soybeans) filed an anti-trust complaint and was turned down by the government when this happened. Those of us in the industry couldn't believe it. Understand, Pioneer and many other companies had leased genetics from Holden's to develop many of their up and coming soybean or corn varieties, which genetic material, of course, would no longer be available for use because it had become proprietary to Monsanto.

We're talking here about a company that grabbed control of a huge percentage of the food production industry through buyouts, and were given a green light by the government. I think this is what people in this thread are trying to express, but simply don't have the industry background to give you the dirty details.

I'm a corn/soybean geek! Ask me anything!

[AP]

16. But if you couldn't copy the CD or let someone borrow the book...

...because of some self-destruct mechanism, what would you pay for the book or CD?

What if the information about the self-destruct mechanism was in tiny print, and you didn't see it?

What if there were a provision in that fine print that fined you a million dollars for trying to use that CD or book the same way you'd been for years?

What if, when you lent the book to your grandmother, you got sued by Monsanto?

Now, what if 90% of the books and CDs had this contractual provision so you really had no choice but to deal with those books and CDs?

[DrWeird]

23. You're confusing Round-up Ready with Terminator genes.

But anyway, copy protection has been around with software for years. And pirates are prosecuted. Where's the uproar about that?

[AP]

25. I'm talking about making a product that doesn't do what you know

the buyer thinks it does (ie, you can't keep some of the seed and replant it, which you've been doing for decades, because of some fine print in a contract of adhesion) and then suing the person for using it the way you know they're going to use it.

[JHB]

17. Comparing apples and Cds...

The way agriculture has worked for the last couple of thousand years is that farmers keep part of their crop as seed for next year's crop. Even with the advent of market-bought seed a hundred(? or more) years ago, what came out of a farmer's field was still his. Monsanto and other GM seed producers want to stand that legacy on its head by claiming ownership of not only the seed they sell, but of any and all offspring seed as well.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

18. Which begs to ponder the question that did any cross pollenation

occur with the plants that produced the 2nd generation of seeds? Were there any chemical anomolies in the soil that produced a slightly different seed? Watering, fertilizer treatments... All these could change the characteristics of the seed.

I think that it should be up to Monsanto to proove that each seed used is IDENTICAL to the original seed sold.

[AP]

20. The way books have worked for centuries is that I can give my book to my

grandma after I finish reading it.

If I couldn't, I'd pay a lot less for it. And I'd hope that there'd be lots of alternatives on the market.

[DrWeird]

21. Simple solution.

Buy seeds from somebody else.

[AP]

24. Monsanto controls the market, buys up competition, pushes out competition

and 90% of the soy they sell is round up ready.

They're making sure there aren't many other options.

It's like telling someone with an office full of PCs and twenty different suites of PC software to buy a Mac.

[DrWeird]

26. If they have a monopoly...

it's up for the courts to break up.

My point is that there's a big distinction between GMO and illicit trading practices. It needs to be clear which one we're talking about.

[AP]

27. GMO is a tool to achieve the monopoly. Science is great. But Monsanto

loves the science not because they want to sacrifice profit margin to feed the world. They love science because they can use it to maximize profits (through tied products, patent infringment suits, and terminator genes), which is, actually, incompatible with feeding the world.

The more expensive it is to grow food, the fewer poor people will eat.

Did you see the latest statiistics. Hunger in America is up about 10% this year, continuing the trend of the last 3 years. Meanwhile, retail food prices are up 25% in the last couple years, and small farmers continue to go out of business while corporate farms take control of the landscape.

[MrMonk]

33. Where do GM soybeans fit into the human food supply?

Or GM corn for that matter. I want to know if there's more to this stuff than cattle feed.

[DrWeird]

34. Alright, then GMO is the tool.

Like software is microsoft's tool for it's monopoly. In my view, there is nothing inheritly wrong with either terminator genes or roundup-ready crops, at least anymore than there is with Windows. But unlike with software, with GMO there is a lot of confusion and scare-mongering with GMO, so if your beef is with Monsanto's business practices than you should clearly state that.

As far as making food more expensive to grow, I believe that most farmers go with GMO because they are in fact cheaper than conventional crops, despite the royalties to the companies that invent them.

And I think the increase in hunger in the united states has far more to do with unemployment than crop shortages.

[AP]

36. It's very bad for the economy. FDR knew that monopolies were bad for

the marketplace.

You know that my problem is with the business practices because you and I had this debate before.

Most farmers go with GMOs because that's what Monsanto is pushing.

If they have to sell it cheap now to get you hooked, like a drug dealer, that's what they'll do.

Why do we pretend that we don't know anything about how business works when we talk about GMO?

You really think the increase in hunger has nothing to do with retail food prices increasing 25% (I didn't say anything about shortages, I said it has to do with prices)?

[treepig]

58. i see that since i debunked your "25% food price increase"

that you've become vaguer and stop including the time frame over which this increase occurred.

that's because over that time period, the overall inflation rate was 27%, consequently over this time, food became a bit cheaper relative to everything else, and therefore poverty-linked hunger should have decreased slightly.

i'd be perfectly pleased if monsanto went out of business today (or anytime soon) - however, the reality is that they provide products that are better than alternatives hence farmers use them.

besides your logic is a bit lacking, if monsanto is now selling its products so cheap - what's up with all the crodile tears for Mr. Homan McFarling? my oh my whatever could have possessed him to bypass monsanto's drug-dealer-like give-away prices and break the law?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. OT but interesting

i see that since i debunked your "25% food price increase" that you've become vaguer and stop including the time frame over which this increase occurred.

that's because over that time period, the overall inflation rate was 27%, consequently over this time, food became a bit cheaper relative to everything else, and therefore poverty-linked hunger should have decreased slightly.

DISCLAIMER: I haven't checked any of the mentioned numbers.

Assuming them accurate, why is hunger in the rise? Could it be that old leftie marching phrase "gap between rich and poor?"

[treepig]

61. my analysis was for the usa only

and if you're wondering why hunger is on the rise here

(if it really is - a source for this information would be helpful although i feel a bit sheepish for asking since i didn't provide any sources myself - they're on my other, now defunct, computer)

clearly it's because of the current occupants of the white house/congress/supreme court (poverty and hunger fell substantially during the clinton years).

worldwide - it'd be interesting to compare hunger/food prices/etc in countries that have adopted gm crops on a wide scale (Canada, China, USA, Argentina) vs those that haven't (Zaire, UK, Bangladesh . . .)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. I saw it in a DU thread. I forget where.

But if I remember right it was an official statistic. Links welcome.

In Brazil (non-GM country), it's decreasing, albeit at an excruciatingly slow pace.

[AP]

66. Author of book on this was interviewed on working assets radio

sometime in the last two months.

Her book has the stat.

http://www.workingforchange.com/radio/index.cfm

If you can't find her name, I'll look for it later.

[AP]

67. What prices have gone up 27% in the last decade.

Real estate? But not, say, computers. I wonder if car prices have gone up that much?

Things like food should be cheaper.

I can't remember the time frame, because the first time I posted the information it was about three hours after I heard it. I can't remember if it was 8 years, ten years or what. The link is below.

I have no idea how Monsanto prices soy. Someone else said it was cheap. If they have a monopoly and are selling it cheap, history and logic tells us the drug dealer model is at play here.

[AP]

69. Here's link for stat on food prices.

rtsp://207.188.20.213:554/realimpact/workingassets/092203.rm?cloakport=80,554,7070

I haven't listened to it yet, but I'm pretty sure this is where it came from.

[AP]

70. By the way, prices farmers get for food have been going down.

It's the retail prices that are going up.

And farmers costs of production are going up.

[treepig]

71. from the "inflation calculator"

at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

enter $1 in 1992; it's equal to $1.27 in 2002; ergo 27% inflation

a more interesting comparison (which i don't have time or resources to do now) would be to analyze gm-adopting countries vs. non-gm countries. like it or not, pesticides are a major cost in agricultural production and a dramatic reduction in their usage is bound to reduce costs:

"The trade-offs are fundamental. Organic farming, for example, uses no artificial fertilizer, but it does use a lot of manure, which can pollute water and contaminate food. Traditional farmers may use less herbicide, but they also do more ploughing, with all the ensuing environmental complications. Low-input agriculture uses fewer chemicals but more land. The point is not that farming is an environmental crime—it is not—but that there is no escaping the pressure it puts on the planet.

. . . snip . . .

Transgenic cotton reduced pesticide use by more than two million pounds in the United States from 1996 to 2000, and it has reduced pesticide sprayings in parts of China by more than half. Earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency approved a genetically modified corn that resists a beetle larva known as rootworm. Because rootworm is American corn's most voracious enemy, this new variety has the potential to reduce annual pesticide use in America by more than 14 million pounds. It could reduce or eliminate the spraying of pesticide on 23 million acres of U.S. land.




from Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?
at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm

[AP]

72. The prices farmers receive have gone down. That calculator takes into

account all goods, at retail, I'm presuming. Wholesale prices for food have gone DOWN. Independant farmers are getting screwed. Those lower prices are not being passed on to the consumers.

When all the independant farmers are gone, prices will go up.

That's what would happen if Wal Mart pushed everyone else out of business.

[treepig]

78. basically, i agree with you that there's a business ethics problem

with gm crops. therefore, if monsanto did go out of business, that'd probably be the best thing that could happen wrt to the prospects for gm crops.

somehow i still maintain that the argument frequently made in every gm thread that gm foods are evil because monsanto is evil lacks a strong logical foundation.

but back to the industrialization of food production - personally i think that any potential problems with gm crops would be far down on the list of concerns worth getting riled up about of any activist who rationally examines what's wrong with food production today.

for example:

1. the horrors of factory farming sentient animals, and causing them enormous suffering

2. the use of massive amounts of hormones and antibiotics to grow the animals listed in point 1

3. the massive overuse of pesticides and the related environmental damage

4. the massive overuse of fertilizers and the related environmental damage (think chesapeake bay)

5. the exploitation of farm workers

somehow the largely theoretical problems posed by gm foods pale in significance with all the real problems already out there.

[AP]

79. I am certainly no expert on agriculture. However, my feeling is that

GMO is part of this problem:

I get the feeling that agriculture is a rare industry in which it is most efficient when it's at its simplest. I've read that subsistence maize farming is one of the most efficient forms of farming there is. I read about how Cuba has really increased its food production with organic community farming in neighborhoods around cities. By not having to ship food in from the countryside, a lot of resources that would have gone into transportation aren't wasted. I've also read somewhere that Amish people are really efficient productive farmers (but I've also read the opposite).

Every industry in America however, drives towards increasing profits. To increase profits for farming, you have to do things that make it more expensive. You make money off the machines (and the tractor companies do all the same things that Ford does to make money of you ... they try to sell you more machine than you need, they hook you into a finance deal, and they screw you on parts and labor). Then you have the fertilizer and seed companies who try to extract their profit. Then you have the food transporters. And then you have the food processors who would rather vertically integrate than have to pay independent farmers the higher prices that this enitre, irrational industry drives upwards, which directly contradicts the natural tendence of agriculture to be best most efficient when it's relatively simple.

I think GMO is just another irrational cost that is being thrown at the independant farmers, and my sneaking suspicion is that it's being used sort of like, I don't know, Clear Channel concert promotion is being used to destroy independent record companies. It's about destroying the independants, but working with the corporate farmers.

I was going to write more...however, I'm already way beyond my area of expertise, and I'm far into the realm of speculation.

Nonetheless, that's what I think is really going on with GMO.

[treepig]

81. what's your definition of efficient agriculture?

if it's defined as production of the maximum amount of food per unit land area, then "simple" methods are probably superior, but very labor intensive - therefore where labor is cheap (cuba?) such methods are viable.

however, if efficiency is defined as production of crops at the lowest possible cost, then american trends toward the industrialization of agriculture make sense (although the yield per acre is particularly impressive - that doesn't matter when there's excess land, and farmers are actually subsidized not to plant crops).

[AP]

82. Food energy created vs energy it took to make it?

Cuba bumps up the scale because they don't have to ship and refrigerate as much now that a huge percentage of their food comes from farms in and around the city.

If cost of labor is a measure in South Africa and Cuba calculations, I'm not aware of it.

[treepig]

83. shipping and refrigeration seem to be a separate issue

from the actual growing of the crops (besides, most grains aren't refrigerated, and shipping is remarkably cheap)

strictly speaking of energy input - once again besides the obvious primary input of solar energy in either case, is the energy required to produce pesticides and fertilizers. and since many fertilizers are made from natural gas, which the recent rise in natural gas prices (and the expected continued trend upwards), who-ever's agriculture (cuba's i suppose) that doesn't depend on such fertilizers is going to be at a competitive advantage.

[AP]

85. I don't know how you can leave it out.

We're talking about the most efficient way to feed people. Gotta look at the entire picture.

I think agriculture doesn't lend itself to profit-making as well as many other industries.

It reproduces itself automatically, and the simpler it is, the more efficient it is.

Profits require complicating things. Thus we have GMOs.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

84. Food Production And Human Population Growth

We weren't the only people in ancient times to recognize the benefits of growing all our food. Among the notable adopters of this meme <"growing all your food is the best way to live"> in the New World were the Maya, the Olmec, the people of Teotihuacán, the Hohokam, the Anasazi, the Aztecs, and the Inca.

and where are they now?

http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Writings/kentstate.shtml


<snip>
I'm talking about the food race—the race to produce enough food to feed our growing population.

There are people in the world—calm, intelligent, reasoning people—who believe that we've already gone over the limit, that even our present population of six billion can't be fed sustainably on this planet. I have no evidence that they're right—and I certainly hope they're wrong. But the six billion is not nearly as alarming as the twelve billion that we will be in your lifetime if we go on growing at this rate.

Now—of course!—there are two handles to this thing. I recently read an Associated Press story that reported that food scientists are confident that they can WIN the food race. By the time there are twelve billion of us, they'll be able to FEED twelve billion. That constitutes a win. SO: Not to worry, folks. The scientists are confident that food will ultimately triumph over population. That's one handle.

The other handle is the one the Union of Concerned Scientists has grabbed. In their "Warning to Humanity," they say: "We must stabilize population," which is of course unarguable. But then they go on to say, "This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning." I'm afraid that grabbing this handle is an act of faith that has virtually nothing to do with science, but it's easy to do, because it means that, really, nobody has to do anything but pray that someday, through some magical, unknown process all nations of the world will improve social and economic conditions and adopt effective, voluntary family planning.

It has been my misfortune to saddle myself with the really thankless task of bringing into view the third handle on this issue. This is a simple and well-known biological fact—well known at least to biologists and ecologists—that a food race like the one I've just described can no more be won than the arms race could be won—and for the same reason. Because neither race has a finish line—except catastrophe. You can't win an arms race with your enemy, because every advance you make in your weaponry will be answered by an advance in your enemy's weaponry, which of course must be answered by an advance in YOUR weaponry, which stimulates an advance in THEIR weaponry, and so on in a never-ending escalation

(just like the arms race)
And in the same way, food cannot win any race with population, because every advance in food production is answered by an advance in population. This isn't a statement that is happily or readily accepted by most members of the public, because, I'm afraid, most members of the public don't really understand the connection between food and populations. I'm therefore going to take a minute to explain that connection.

If you fence off a shopping mall parking lot, put a bull and a cow inside, along with a bale of hay every day, you will soon have three or four cows. But no matter how long you wait, you will NOT have thirty or forty cows—not on one bale of hay a day. If you want to have thirty or forty cows, then you're going to have throw ten bales of hay over the fence. Of course they also need water and air—but all the water and air in the world will not turn three or four cows into thirty or forty cows in the absence of those ten bales of hay. You can't make cows out of sunshine or rainbows or moonbeams. It takes hay.

Now when you have your forty cows, you don't have to start throwing eleven bales of hay over the fence. If you just want forty, then ten bales is plenty. There isn't going to be a famine among these cows just because you stop at ten bales—there just isn't going to be any population growth. On those ten bales a day, those forty cows are NEVER going to turn into four hundred. But if you WANT four hundred cows, then you've got to provide more hay, and you're going to end up buying a hundred bales a day to feed those four hundred cows.

Now the exact same thing is true of humans. Fence off the parking lot, toss in a man and a woman and a couple bags of groceries every day, and before long you'll have a family of four. But those four will NEVER turn into forty if all you're throwing over the fence is a couple bags of groceries a day. Can't happen. Because people are just like cows—you can't make them out of sunshine or rainbows or moonbeams. It takes corn flakes and bananas and hot dogs and split pea soup and raisin bread and broccoli.

If you want these four to turn into forty, then you're going to have throw twenty bags of groceries over the fence instead of two. And when you get those forty people, if you decide that's ALL you want living in this parking lot, all you have to do is keep throwing twenty bags of groceries over the fence. There's not going to be a famine. Twenty bags of groceries fed these forty people yesterday and they'll feed them today. On these twenty bags of groceries, the population is going to be stable at around forty people. But if you change your mind and decide you want 400 people living in this parking lot, then all you have to do is start throwing a couple hundred bags of groceries over the fence instead of twenty—and by golly, eventually there WILL be 400 people living in that parking lot.

There WILL be, but our cultural mythology says there doesn't HAVE to be. According to our cultural mythology, forty people COULD make up their minds to remain forty. It could of course happen. It's imaginable. But on this big parking lot we call the earth it never HAS happened.

much much more...

[treepig]

28. but there are other options!

according to this website

http://www.wildlife.state.nc.us/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7f2c_1.htm

(current as of april, 2003), there were at least six non-monsanto sources of non-gm soybeans commercially available:


AdvantageSeed

Carl R. Gurley

Seedland

Southern States

Spandle Nurseries

Turner Seed Co.

so why does anybody buy their seeds from monsanto if they're so evil? - the answer has to be simply because the farmer thinks he or she will save alot of money on reduced pesticide use.

but, if they choose to buy their seeds from monsanto, part of the bargain is that they must use the seeds in the manner specified in the sales contract.

so, the farmers should either support the non-gm sellers, or quit whining about monsanto.

[BiggJawn]

46. Like who, pray tell?

Monsanto's becoming the only game in town, and they're "Bush Pioneers" or the higher tier, so don't go on about anti-trust litigation.

The charge was made earlier that you work for Monsanto.
I demand disclosure.

[AP]

48. DrWierd wrote a research paper on Round-Up. He/She used the footnotes

from the article to support an argument in another thread. I asked him/her to provide the text to the article, which he/she eventually did. It forced an admission that the he/she wrote the paper. It was a love letter to Round-Up.

I think the claim was that it was for college.

I don't know many college students who write love letters to Round-Up.

Regardless of the truth, it's probably safe to assume that DrWeird has a close relationship to Monsanto.

[Zephyrbird]

52. (In my best Ace Ventura voice:)

"oh, reeee-ee-eeeeALLY???!!!!"

How interesting! I worked 6 years in the research division of a seed company.

.....this could be fun, folks!

:evilgrin:

[javadu]

32. But you can listen to the CD as often as you like . . .

Moreover, you can read the book as many times as you like. You are not charged everytime you listen to the CD or the read the book.

This farmer has put his own hard work and money into growing a crop and producing seeds for his crop next year. It may be Monsanto's genes, but they are not Monsanto's seeds. They are his seeds, that he grew, presumably on his land, with his money, and his hard work.

[MrMonk]

44. "By the sweat of their brow"

If someone expends makes the investment or expends the labor to knock off a few thousand copies of a CD or video, or of some invention, does he have the right to undersell the copyright or patent owner because of his own hard work?

[Mairead]

42. The problem is that you're redefining the problem

The guy wasn't trying to give away the seed.

[MrMonk]

30. "Pure heart, empty head"

Seed companies have been creating proprietary crop strains through selective breeding for over 60 years. For almost as long, these companies have been trying through various means to discourage farmers from saving a portion of their crop for replanting. It's unbelievable that McFarling wouldn't have been unaware of this requirement. His problem is that he got caught.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Let me pretend for a short time you didn't call me "empty head"...

...and thus be able to answer politely. Seed companies didn't sue people before before the law wouldn't allow for something as disgusting as patenting a life form. Now that law has been completely bought and paid for by big corps, they can do that, instead of "trying through various means to discourage".

In many countries, such patents can't be enforced. I can grab a handful of Roundup Ready soy and start my own soy plantation, and there's nothing you can do about it. Are such countries evil? Is their law wrong? Was US law wrong before?

[MrMonk]

37. "Pure heart, empty head" refers to the farmer's stated defense.

Companies did sue farmers before the Supreme Court's decision that lifeforms could be patented. They sued on the basis of contract: their agreement with the farmer that a portion of the harvest wouldn't be replanted. Where else does the seed company reap its reward for developing a new seed, if the seed becomes common property after a season or two?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. They should have chosen another line of business then

GM foods are NOT needed to feed the planet. Sensible policies (= non-RW ones), education, and family planning are.

That said, the contract aspect is somewhat legitimate, and less poisonous to society. If I get hold of some seeds, without signing a contract, nothing keeps me from starting a plantation of the new and improved seeds. I imagine you would have no problems with that.

Patenting, on the other hand, forbids even that. And there is the danger.

[Mairead]

40. I'm sorry, I hope the guy loses. Frankensoybeans?

I damn sure don't want any of those finding their way into my doufu!

He should never had bought the frankenseed.

[slackmaster]

41. I hate Monsanto too but they appear to be correct in this case

I wonder what happens if one gets hold of some beans and plants it without signing no steenkin' "technology agreement"?

That person would be in possession of stolen goods, just as would be a person in possession of a pirated copy of Microsoft Office.

If you don't want to abide by the terms of a license agreement, don't buy the product.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. "gets hold of" not "steal"

The farmer may have SOLD you a small bag. Or given maybe.

The question still stands.

[slackmaster]

50. That's exactly the same as receiving stolen goods any other way

If you are in possession of something that you did not acquire legally, you are a thief.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. HUH?

Maybe you misunderstand me. Farmer A does NOTHING Monsanto disapproves of. He SELLS bags of beans to various people (that's the entire purpose of running a farm), which in turn may sell them to other people, which may (a) make industrialized food, (b) cook and eat them, (c) build an exact replica of the Notre Dame Cathedral, (d) plant them, or (e) do other things with them.

[slackmaster]

64. Sorry I misconstrued your point

As I understand the licensing agreement on that product (and I haven't read the whole thing), all fo the above would be perfectly OK unless a person used them as seed to produce soybeans for profit (thus avoiding buying them from Monsanto).

[Zephyrbird]

45. Devil's Advocate here...."brown bagging"

Now any of you who have read my responses on GM threads knows my opinion of Monsanto and GM foods, ownership of genetic bases, etc.

But let me just insert a caveat to this story, called "brown bagging" in the industry.

The term "brown bagging" refers to the practice of farmers planting proprietary varieties of soybeans and then re-selling, NOT replanting, the crop the following year to other farmers. This has been fought in the industry for years, for many reasons, the main ones being:

1) The company, which has spent millions and years on developing a variety such as STS (Roundup Ready) tolerant soybeans, loses a tremendous amount of its investment when farmers rebag soybeans, label them "Monsanto STS beans, variety _______," and then sell them to other farmers. You have to ask, what is the sense of developing new varieties if you don't make any money selling them? This MIGHT be a case of brown bagging, it's not clear from the article. When I was in the industry, there was no prosecution of farmers replanting seed FOR THEIR OWN USE, but there has always been prosecution on the basis of brown bagging.

2) When farmers sell seed to other farmers, it is most often *dirty* seed, meaning it hasn't been cleaned of weed seeds, pathogens, or other foreign materials. Farmers plant this "dirty" seed the following year, and often help spread now-resistant weeds and other pests to more and more farmland. Industry standards dictate that the seed you buy from the company be clean of foreign seed or materials, and that germination rates be up to standard, which is 97%. If a farmer buys a bag that says "Monsanto variety RX6766" for instance, he may assume it is industry standard when it has actually been brown bagged by a farmer looking to sell seed for the same amount that the company does, thereby reaping a profit but not ensuring the same standards the company does. Thus, the company is blamed for the spread of resistant seed, probable soil pathogens, low germination rates, etc., when it's not their fault.

Brown bagging is extremely sticky. This may be a case of that, maybe not. I offer these caveats so you know what the problems with brown bagging are.

[AP]

49. basically, it seems like it accelarates a problem with round-up ready

seeds that will develop anyway -- resistance to round-up.

I agree that these are sticky issues, and Monsanto does have some legitimate business concerns. But it shouldn't mean that we lose sight of the core issue of encouraging sustainability in the face of genetic engineering, intellectual property litigation, etc.

[Zephyrbird]

51. BINGO!

Yes, it does accelerate the problem with weed resistance--one of my main objections to the development of STS anyway! :-) Weed resistance may be on the order of .0001 in any given field, but nevertheless, YES, weed resistance is inevitable. You understand, then, that stronger and stronger herbicides will needed to combat the resistance, yes?

Folks are under the mistaken impression that STS allows you to use less pesticide, when this is actually resistance to herbicide, a big difference. STS (Roundup Ready) actually allows a farmer to spray MORE herbicides on his fields because the crop is resistant to the herbicide.

But gods help the poor farmer that may be adjacent to a field of STS beans. If Roundup is sprayed on a windy day, drift may destroy or severely damage adjacent orchards or farm crops. I knew of a lot of burndown damage when I worked in the industry. I'll never forget the farmer calling about damage to his orchard. yeow!

[BiggJawn]

60. Or how about the guy who bought what he THOUGHT was STS...

Happened to the guy who farmed my dad's land. He bought what he thought was "Round-up Ready" soybeans. Come time to apply the Round-Up, did HE ever get a very unpleasant surprise....

[Trek234]

57. IP rights have gone WAY too far

in this country. It's time to pull back.

There was a case where an indian tribe used a certain animal product for hundreds of years. Guess what? A company produced the same product, and sold it. Long story short they managed to sue the inidans for infringing on the companys IP.

F***ing pathetic.

[arwalden]

88. Very Similar To Patented Roses...

The nursery I worked in (many many years ago) would graft cuttings from the patented rosebush... but would not sell it under the patented name. It was sold under its COLOR or as being similar-TO another rose name.

I don't know if this was the legal way to get around the patent, or if we were just lucky that nobody bothered to enforce it.

-- Allen

[OldSoldier]

91. I'll tell you what happens...

If Monsanto finds a plant grown from a Monsanto seed in your field and you don't have a technology agreement with them (or you do have one and you didn't buy Monsanto seed this year, maybe because you like the performance of another seed better), they sue you. It has happened.