If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Supreme Court agrees to take case on whether Monsanto can forever own our food   (npr.org) divider line 130
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto, Roundup  
•       •       •

12535 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2012 at 8:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-16 09:48:18 PM

Honest Bender: Go watch this movie. It's available to stream from netflix. What Monsanto does isn't just criminal, it's practically agricultural terrorism. They should be scorched from the surface of the Earth.


Greedy, single-minded middle-aged white men, wearing suits.
These are the true enemies of the human race. They'll deplete all the resources, pollute the air and water, and be sending the young men off to die so they can squabble over whats left.
They can be "left" or "right", but they all share the common respect for other old, rich, white dudes just like them. (Judges fall into that rich old white dude category) and all share contempt for anyone who is not like them.
 
2012-10-16 10:40:09 PM
on most topics, i'm inclined to go with the scientists...

but when it comes to dicking around with genetic codes that developed over billions of years, i'm inclined to side with "god" being the most reliable to not fark up our ecosystem. it's all fun and games until the bees all die or some other unexpected shiat happens

monsanto has proven they're just a bunch of greedy bastards who only care about money through their lawyers

they also did a helluva job creating agent orange
 
2012-10-16 10:43:38 PM
sprgrss
The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.

Well, by all means, link to some appropriately-misleading articles for us to base our opinions on.
 
2012-10-16 10:46:16 PM

sprgrss: Honest Bender: KrispyKritter: you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet

Cool. Go for it. Then, when your neighbor's monsanto crop contaminates yours you'll get sued by Monsanto. Because they DO keep tabs on farmers. All farmers. And they WILL sneak onto your farm and take samples. And they WILL sue you for "using" their GMO without a license. And you WILL lose.

Holy hell, this post is so devoid of any actual factual basis it isn't even funny.


You're either trolling (I hope) or colossally ignorant.

A quick Google search can cure the latter.
 
2012-10-16 10:47:27 PM

JerkyMeat: The SC is stacked with conservative fascist GOP fargotts, so I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of the corp.


You mean like the ones that extended Eminent Domain to be "whatever the government wants" ?

/Go over to the debate thread, you farktard
 
2012-10-16 10:50:57 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.


Yeah, this does seem pretty much open and shut.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

If that actually happened (as stated) and the case wasn't immediately thrown out with prejudice, then the judge who allowed it should be impeached. There is no act of infringement, nor is there any agreement in place to prohibit it.

cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?


How did all the other seeds become unusable?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

What made all non GMC go extinct?

Also, patents shouldn't last as long as they do.
 
2012-10-16 10:52:49 PM
Gee, I wonder how Obama appointed Supreme Court Judge Kagan will rule on this. I think she'll just rubber stamp everything in favor of Monsanto as usual. Good ole liberal judges, right?
 
2012-10-16 10:55:05 PM
Seems like a straightforward "doctrine of first use"
 
2012-10-16 10:57:02 PM

Carousel Beast: A quick Google search can cure the latter.



And as I said earlier. If you bothered to actually read the court cases on the issues and the filings, you'd see that what is being reported by the media is bollocks.

Hell, the darling of the anti-Monsanto crowd, Percy Schmeiser, didn't get in trouble for cross pollination, but got in trouble because he planted Monsanto crops without paying for them and then used round-up to kill all the non-monsanto rapeseed.
 
2012-10-16 10:58:06 PM

dervish16108: Gee, I wonder how Obama appointed Supreme Court Judge Kagan will rule on this. I think she'll just rubber stamp everything in favor of Monsanto as usual. Good ole liberal judges, right?


So you think she should magically create her own law from the bench and not interpret the statutes that are at issue? If she did that, she wouldn't be fit to be a judge.
 
2012-10-16 11:03:50 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


These are the problematic cases. Unfortunately, Monsanto isn't actually to blame here. Rather, blame our legal system. Monsanto doesn't have the option to ignore such innocent infringement because to do so would leave their patents unenforceable.
 
2012-10-16 11:09:09 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Wouldn't matter: it's a patent case. Patent law means it doesn't matter how you managed to obtain an infringing product: if it violates the protected claims of the patent (even if you developed it yourself while the patent was still secret) you can't sell it.

Using round-up could very well be "willful infringement" that triples the damages given, but IANAL.
 
2012-10-16 11:19:29 PM

JerkyMeat: The SC is stacked with conservative fascist GOP fargotts, so I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of the corp.


You mean the 5/4 SCOTUS split that famously upheld ObamaCare as Constitutional, favoring the government over corps?
 
2012-10-16 11:24:51 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Wouldn't matter: it's a patent case. Patent law means it doesn't matter how you managed to obtain an infringing product: if it violates the protected claims of the patent (even if you developed it yourself while the patent was still secret) you can't sell it.


Exactly why patent laws should not apply or cover living organisms.
You cannot control what your "invention" will do in the wild. It's a living thing, it will do what it wants.

Monsanto farked up by not making this breed sterile, they should not have any rights to go after anyone who has offspring of this breed, or even 2nd/3rd/4th-hand seeds of this breed. It's out there now, it's out of their control.
 
2012-10-16 11:31:27 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Actually, I think this is a myth. I have attempted to look up such cases, and have never been able to find any. From what I have seen, Monsanto only tries cases where there is evidence people have *intentionally* planted seed that they knew would contain their patented genes.

There have been a couple of cases where somebody *claimed* that their crop resulted from accidental cross-pollination, but when I looked at the facts, it really seemed like they were lying and had intentionally planted roundup-ready crops.
 
2012-10-16 11:42:46 PM
They can have my food when I'm done with it. I'll leave it in their lobby.

/bet they have some good magazines in the lobby. Some sudoku. Laws yes.
 
2012-10-16 11:44:37 PM

cs30109: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

Actually, I think this is a myth. I have attempted to look up such cases, and have never been able to find any. From what I have seen, Monsanto only tries cases where there is evidence people have *intentionally* planted seed that they knew would contain their patented genes.

There have been a couple of cases where somebody *claimed* that their crop resulted from accidental cross-pollination, but when I looked at the facts, it really seemed like they were lying and had intentionally planted roundup-ready crops.


Winner Winner chicken dinner
 
2012-10-16 11:46:05 PM

Saturn5: The most outrageous case from Monsanto I've heard of it a farmer using non-Monsanto seed (that are not round-up-proof)
Monsanto see from a passing truck allegedly has some blown into his field and it mixed in with his seeds. When Monsanto found out they said all of his seed, whether round up ready or not, was subject to their patent because some of the seed had been mixed in. It was either pay Monsanto for seed he already paid someone else for, or throw it out.


I say we take off and nuke Monsanto from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2012-10-16 11:55:58 PM
Monsanto created a soybean that was resistant to their herbicide. The farmer knew that the seed he bought was Monsanto's because he sprayed that herbicide on his crop instead of some other one that would kill the weeds and the soybean equally well which is a pretty good indication of guilt. Patents only last 17 years and the patent has already expired on Roundup and it will expire on Roundup resistant soybeans eventually but in the meantime they have the right to enforce the patent and recoup their R&D costs for what is clearly a very valuable and useful product given that it has a 94% market share. Can anybody think of another product that has a 94% market share?
 
2012-10-17 12:04:01 AM
SCOTUSblog's got the details of the case.

Their summary:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion - a doctrine which eliminates the right to control or prohibit the use of an invention after an authorized sale - in patented seeds that were sold for planting; and (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.

See also Wikipedia's summary of the exhaustion doctrine. Given that the Court had already accepted a case covering copyright's first-sale doctrine, it is not surprising -- or in any way indicative that they'll be overturning the lower decision -- that they'd take an analogous patent case too.
 
2012-10-17 12:16:47 AM
not quite relevant but vaguely topical

nice chart, bro
 
2012-10-17 12:28:44 AM
*sigh*

Can we please, as a society, move on from the damn Monsanto-seed-lawsuit issues? They're such terrible examples to use, where the FAIL is thick on all sides. Continuing to use these cases just ends up degrading into these useless conversations, caught forever in an argument over useless details and justified name-calling.

Instead, remember that there is a giant list of reasons to hate Monsanto; this muddied and confusing seed-use issue isn't even needed.

TL;DR for links, respectively: rBST, Agent Orange, PCBs contamination, dioxin spills, antitrust
/nowhere close to an exhaustive list; that's just what I could find links for quickly in google...
 
2012-10-17 12:30:23 AM
Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.
 
2012-10-17 12:36:16 AM

tekmo: Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.


Exactly. This is a patent, not a farking copyright. The plant you bought may produce seeds. Those seeds are not derivative works of art protected by copyright.
 
2012-10-17 12:36:27 AM

tekmo: Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.


I'm not sure that is true. I'll be honest and admit I know nothing about farming, but I'm fairly sure you are licensing herbicide resistant technology as opposed to buying a seed.

The real shiatstorm will happen if California passes prop 37 requiring all GMO foods to be labeled. There is no non-GMO corn or Soy in the US (no supply large enough to serve someone like Kraft or General Mills). Even if you try plant non-GMO, there is enough GMO pollen around to contaminate your fields.
 
2012-10-17 12:47:35 AM

cuzsis: cuzsis: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.

I forgot to mention effort made to keep a viable population of plants that *aren't* GMO, for the purposes of starting over when we finally manage to fark up the first batch of GMO to the point where they become too poisonous to use consistently.

/that's a pipe dream though.


They're called "heirloom seeds" and they're quite easily available.
 
2012-10-17 12:49:15 AM
I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.
 
2012-10-17 01:14:06 AM

tekmo: Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.


Ask your representatives their view on Monsanto thievery around the world.
Ask your representatives to resign if they are pro Monsanto.
Do not vote for any candidate who has not explicitly rejected Monsanto.

Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates.
Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.
Point out to your friends Monsanto employees, scorn them.
Ask them to leave your neighborhood.

If you find a patron in your restaurant works for Monsanto, do not serve them.
Make them wait, and then ask them to leave.
Do not do business with anyone associated with Monsanto.

Unless, of course, you think it is OK to be charged every single time you hear a song.
If you think it is OK for your cars manufacturer to charge you yearly for driving their car.
If you think it is OK for the breeder you bought your dog from to own your dogs offspring.
If you believe these things then please exit the USA, abandon your citizenship, and GFTO.
 
2012-10-17 01:14:18 AM

namatad: This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

sigh


Won't matter, the farmers will have the current non-sterile seedstocks and will use them endlessly if they can, rather than purchase sterile seeds from a mostly detested company.
 
2012-10-17 01:17:21 AM

OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.


Don't worry. They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Link
 
2012-10-17 01:19:10 AM
Are you allowed to take a portion of the crops and hold them over for seed for next season?

Seems like you should be able to.
 
2012-10-17 01:27:04 AM

RogermcAllen: I'm not sure that is true. I'll be honest and admit I know nothing about farming, but I'm fairly sure you are licensing herbicide resistant technology as opposed to buying a seed.


I'd presume that would be Monsanto's argument, but that's making a mockery of the concept of a lease. Indeed, if Monsanto actually licensed their ag technology to XYZ Corporation of Inner Mongolia, yes, of course they can and should assert control over their intellectual property within the bounds of ordinary lease law.

That said, if Monsanto chooses to develop plants designed to work with special efficiency with Monsanto herbicides and pesticides, then pitch the sale to the customer in terms of cost-effectiveness, convenience or whatever, well that's literally their business. Likewise, if I want to buy a Monsanto seed and NOT use a Monsanto herbicide, that's my business. Monsanto can't dictate how I manage my business merely because I purchase one of their products.

It's like Home Depot insisting they have the right to limit how I use the hammer I purchased there, then suing me for using that hammer to drive nails I bought at Lowes, or claiming they have rights to the product of my labor because I used that particular hammer.

Just...no.
 
2012-10-17 01:29:18 AM

from my blood: Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates. Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.


Well NOW you tell me!

My ex's father was a Monsanto salesman, and Christ, what an asshole.

The ex turned out to be just as bad.
 
2012-10-17 01:30:57 AM

Wise_Guy: Are you allowed to take a portion of the crops and hold them over for seed for next season?


No.
 
2012-10-17 01:34:07 AM

tekmo: from my blood: Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates. Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.

Well NOW you tell me!

My ex's father was a Monsanto salesman, and Christ, what an asshole.

The ex turned out to be just as bad.


Well, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you know. And if it does, whoever picks it up gets sued.
 
2012-10-17 01:34:25 AM
page not found.
 
2012-10-17 01:38:17 AM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net 

/Am disappoint 
//If it's obscure your a idiot
 
2012-10-17 01:42:08 AM

RogermcAllen: The real shiatstorm will happen if California passes prop 37 requiring all GMO foods to be labeled. There is no non-GMO corn or Soy in the US (no supply large enough to serve someone like Kraft or General Mills). Even if you try plant non-GMO, there is enough GMO pollen around to contaminate your fields.


i.imgur.com

?
 
2012-10-17 01:47:33 AM
Doesn't Monsanto do some weird genetic terminating trick that sterilizes first gen. seeds, to force growers to buy seed more frequently? I could be wrong, though...there's a LOT of tinfoil out there when Monsanto is concerned, and finding impartial information about them can be dodgy.
 
2012-10-17 01:47:37 AM

untaken_name: They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.


Oh ferfarksake.

A manufacturer sells a textbook in America for a much, much higher price than it sells the same textbook in Asia. Enterprising student buys the Asian textbooks for the manufacturer's asking price there, transports them here, sells them to American students, realizes a small profit.

Manufacturer sues enterprising student for interfering with their right to price-gouge Americans.

I just...ugh.
 
2012-10-17 01:53:32 AM

tekmo: untaken_name: They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Oh ferfarksake.

A manufacturer sells a textbook in America for a much, much higher price than it sells the same textbook in Asia. Enterprising student buys the Asian textbooks for the manufacturer's asking price there, transports them here, sells them to American students, realizes a small profit.

Manufacturer sues enterprising student for interfering with their right to price-gouge Americans.

I just...ugh.


Apparently, "free trade" is only for registered, licensed corporations. (Yes, I realize it always was.)
 
2012-10-17 02:10:09 AM
Perhaps not the greatest example of genetic code manipulation, it freaks me out that bananas are code 4011 everywhere.

I suppose if I move I won't have to learn new codes.
 
2012-10-17 02:26:47 AM

ciberido: I say we take off and nuke Monsanto from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


Assassinating their board of directors would be just as effective and much less messy.
 
2012-10-17 02:28:23 AM

clyph: ciberido: I say we take off and nuke Monsanto from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Assassinating their board of directors would be just as effective and much less messy.


During a meeting with their lawyers, pls.
 
2012-10-17 02:39:02 AM

OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.


I'll disagree. I think it fits a licensing model. Like when I pay for some commercial software, I haven't purchased ownership of the software itself. I have purchased the right to use their software for a set period of time on a single machine. All ownership and rights to the software are retained by the company. And making a copy, or using the software past the time period for which I have a license is illegal.

pay for antivirus software, I am purchasing the right to use it for a set period of time on a limited number of machines. After that year period, then I have to relicense or cease using the product.

When
 
2012-10-17 02:41:47 AM
Wow, that was weird. Half my post disappeared. Oh well, you get the idea.
 
2012-10-17 02:52:23 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.

I'll disagree. I think it fits a licensing model. Like when I pay for some commercial software, I haven't purchased ownership of the software itself. I have purchased the right to use their software for a set period of time on a single machine. All ownership and rights to the software are retained by the company. And making a copy, or using the software past the time period for which I have a license is illegal.

pay for antivirus software, I am purchasing the right to use it for a set period of time on a limited number of machines. After that year period, then I have to relicense or cease using the product.


And does the software maker own your creation if you use, for example, their compiler? Same for animation software? Who owns the fruits of their labor? The tool maker or the tool user? Seeds are just another tool. They don't grow into profitable crops on their own. That takes hard work. Monsanto does not create the crops, so why should they have any say whatsoever to how those crops are used?
 
2012-10-17 02:56:31 AM

untaken_name: OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.

Don't worry. They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Link


That case would only affect foreign sales imported into this country. Monsanto is an American company selling directly to American farmers. I don't see how it would apply in this case even if the courts ruled badly.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past a company like Monsanto to create a post box in another country and shift their "corporate office" over seas if that would give them more control.
 
2012-10-17 02:58:12 AM
Nrokreffefp
namatad: This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
sigh
Won't matter, the farmers will have the current non-sterile seedstocks and will use them endlessly if they can, rather than purchase sterile seeds from a mostly detested company.


My science knowledge is weak, but seeds migrate even if accidently. Would cross-pollenation create a problem making other non-sterile seeds sterile?
 
2012-10-17 03:27:47 AM
There is no way to sustain this planet full of people without companies like Monsanto. And while I agree that their tactics are questionable, the answer as to why the scientific community is at least ambivalent about them (if not downright positive) and why the Obama administration is in favor of them, is right there. Stop breeding, start building a wall around the West, or live with Monsanto. Those are your options.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report