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.

(Washington Post)   "Bowman denies that he has found an ingenious loophole around Monsanto's restriction. 'As far as I know, I'm the only damn dumb farmer around', that tried"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 76
    More: Cool, Monsanto, supreme courts, Roundup, supreme court cases, genetically modified crops, loopholes, farmers, end table  
•       •       •

25848 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-10 11:52:56 AM  
16 votes:
Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.  I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani any day now.
2013-02-10 12:03:39 PM  
8 votes:
I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.
2013-02-10 12:24:21 PM  
7 votes:

PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.


In a sane world, Monsanto get a 20 year patent ending in c. 2016 and then any farmer can do whatever they like with the seeds.

It's IP law that sucks more than Monsanto.
2013-02-10 12:36:51 PM  
6 votes:

utah dude: FizixJunkee: jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.

expand your search to include a certain competitor based in Europe, buddy, and you'll see things that make WWII Germany look like a health spa for Jews.


Instead of dropping hints and flirting with Godwin, how about you just tell us instead of making us play guessing games?  Maybe provide a link or two to back up your assertions.
2013-02-10 12:18:31 PM  
6 votes:
Yeah! Let's allow a corporate entity to monopolize seed production and use for the world. What could possibly go wrong?

Corporations are people, my friend.


Patented seeds that survive anything, EVEN FIRST SALE DOCTRINE! Yipeee!!

This entire planet is farking insane and we will deserve everything we get.

Enjoy the corporate "free market" jerk circle while splitting hairs over the abominations we've made out of patent and copyright law, because it's coming to a SCOTUS near you!

How will they rule?
WIll Roberts surprise everyone with another moment of sanity?
Or will Scalia wring his hands just right?
It could be Citizens United for the global food supply!

/when I was a kid they said GMO could cure world hunger
//but what fun is that when we can just sit on a mountain of farking cash, amirite? we have future profits I mean vital research and development to think about
///some days I really really hate our species
2013-02-10 12:00:35 PM  
6 votes:
In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.
2013-02-10 12:00:28 PM  
6 votes:
I hope he wins, and the textbook selling guy wins. Basically, I want first sale doctrine to win.
2013-02-10 11:51:38 AM  
6 votes:
All these fields are yours, except Europa. Attempt no planting there. Use them together. Use them for peas.
2013-02-10 12:30:13 PM  
5 votes:
I hope this guy wins. I am against any company that genetically alters anything. To quote Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." I don't think most people know what kind of unwanted changes can possibly happen when something is genetically altered.
2013-02-10 12:27:26 PM  
5 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

This.  It's even more frightening when it's food.  Necessary evil, my ass.  They could just as easily be a seed bank, but instead they feel the need to own everything.


Agreed. Just imagine what could happen if a blight of some sort hit Monsanto corn or soy. Seriously. It's bad enough when the weather does in a fruit crop. If a staple is lost, well, that could get ugly.

No seed and no corporation should have a monopoly over a food crop.
2013-02-10 12:19:24 PM  
5 votes:
You always get the feeling that Monsanto would manufacture soylent green if they thought they could get away with it.
2013-02-10 12:10:18 PM  
5 votes:

PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.


This.  It's even more frightening when it's food.  Necessary evil, my ass.  They could just as easily be a seed bank, but instead they feel the need to own everything.
2013-02-10 12:01:23 PM  
5 votes:
I don't like that, legally, if 1 item in a group of [very large number] items is under a set of rules, then all items in that group are under the same set of rules because it's too hard to differentiate between types.

But I guess you can do whatever the fark you want if you have an ass load of money.
2013-02-10 11:54:36 AM  
5 votes:
Companies like monsanto are the ultimate result of overpopulation and a government that doesn't want riots over food supply stability.  They're a 'necessary' evil.
2013-02-10 11:51:08 AM  
5 votes:
I like this guy. Getting a law suit Monsanto v. Anything to an appellate level is impressive, but the Supreme Court is astounding.
2013-02-10 12:58:46 PM  
4 votes:
Wait, 90% of the soybean crop is Monsanto's Roundup Ready? How is this not subject to antitrust regulations?
2013-02-10 12:17:39 PM  
4 votes:
An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, "would devastate innovation in biotechnology," which involves "notoriously high research and development costs."

Of fark off, you greedy farking farkers.
2013-02-10 12:01:48 PM  
4 votes:

encyclopediaplushuman: I like this guy. Getting a law suit Monsanto v. Anything to an appellate level is impressive, but the Supreme Court is astounding.


Indeed, that usually means that there is something in Bowman's argument that the Supremes liked, and want to hear argued before them in greater detail. Monsanto probably figured that the Supremes would do the whole "refuse to hear, therefore let stand" deal, and got a rude awakening when they put the case on the docket for verbal arguments instead.
2013-02-10 12:01:20 PM  
4 votes:
Next, Monsanto will be invent itself as a religion and claim tax free status since they have a patent on creation.  Hand me that non genetically modified popcorn.
2013-02-10 11:55:18 AM  
4 votes:

jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.  I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani Umbrella any day now.


ftfy
2013-02-10 01:04:50 PM  
3 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Bondith: Companies have been doing product development for years and making a profit. There is no need to change the business model from "make a better product and sell it" to "we dictate to the customer what they can and cannot do with the product we sell them."

But isn't that comparing apples to oranges though?  If an F150 could reproduce, wouldn't Ford want mandatory truck abortions written into law?  First sale doesn't allow you to burn cds and sell them, don't see why that line of reasoning doesn't extend to seeds.


Again, seed companies have been selling seeds for years and still somehow managed to stay in business, even when farmers saved some of their crop to plant the next year.  Monsanto wants to change existing practices because its bloated profits are threatened.  This isn't about investment, R&D or any other bullshiat excuse they may try to advance in court.  It's about greed and control.
2013-02-10 12:45:19 PM  
3 votes:
So let me get this straight....

They create a chemical that almost every farmer needs to produce a god amount of crops without worrying about weeds.

Oops, the chemical kills the crops.

Ok then, the company invents a crop/seed that's immune to the poison. So if you want to be a successful farmer, you have to buy their poison AND their poison-resistant seeds.

Diabolical!

Except, oops, you only have to buy the seeds once. So make contracts and laws that say people aren't allowed to do that. I'm calling BS right there. Here's a hypothetical situation: A company develops a -genetic- defense against most diseases and cancers (or some futuristic super-plague that's wiping out humanity, whatever). You pay for the injection once and you're set. What these guys are saying is that if someone who got an injection has a child who inherited the immunity, that they'd have to pay AGAIN because the child is automatically immune.

However this goes, I hope the Judges look into the long-term ramifications of bioresearch and the rights of individuals against profiteering. I'd hate for my eventual super-mutant baby to become property of a company because I got a life-saving treatment once.
2013-02-10 12:32:02 PM  
3 votes:
I hope he prevails, Monsanto is the poster child for evil
2013-02-10 12:25:11 PM  
3 votes:

jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.

2013-02-10 12:24:02 PM  
3 votes:

DoomPaul: On the one hand, I understand why a company would want to protect its investment. What's the point in spending hundreds of millions or billions in R&D and other costs to develop a seed, sell it one time, then everyone can just plant the progeny from the first crop and never have to buy more seeds from the original company. On the other hand, there is going to far and being complete pricks by pulling an RIAA.


Then maybe they should invent a product that doesn't require a fleet of lawyers in order to ensure a profit. They could make the seeds self-terminating then they wouldn't have to worry other people planting the next generation. Their product self-replicates itself by design.... how can they access others of copyright infringement when their special genes makes copies of itself even without human intervention?
2013-02-10 12:21:29 PM  
3 votes:
"Inventors are unlikely to make such investments if they cannot prevent purchasers of living organisms containing their invention from using them to produce unlimited copies," Monsanto states.

The truly creative, and that includes scientists, will pursue their creative outputs regardless of whether or not wealth is waiting at the end of the road.  People, for the most part, are in fact LESS likely to enjoy and flourish in a task if it is tied to a monetary goal.  The creative people in society don't need millions and a monopoly, they need a sandbox and the resources to play in it(and, of course, the ability to live and have a full life at the same time, so obviously some money is required).

The patent lawyers, ceos, cfos, corporate secrets, keeping new advancements until you can't sell the last one any longer, etc, are only holding us back.

I don't think monsanto is the pure evil many people say, and I don't expect it to lead to the destruction of the world as we know it, but the idea that people will only invent if given riches is retarded.
2013-02-10 12:18:41 PM  
3 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Weird case, can you purposely do an end around the copyright by buying feed soy and planting it?  If 90% of the feed soy is Monsanto, it makes the practice in violation of the copyright.  Sounds like a restriction on trade.  Longstanding business practice calls for planting feed soy for your second crop.

Both sides have a compelling argument.  One side is a huge business conglomerate.  Wonder who is gonna win?  I'm guessing 5-4 Monsanto.

This guy is probably a bad representative though, if he stopped buying the official seed in 2007 and has been doing the feed soy replanting thing.  Looks like he's purposely avoiding the copyright as opposed to incidentally violating it based on the impossibility of buying non Monsanto feed.


Unless Monsanto's singing songs about it, it's not copyright.  Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights.  Learn the difference.  This is clearly a trademark issue.
/pet peave
2013-02-10 12:16:41 PM  
3 votes:
Party 1: "If you don't do what we say, the results will result in TOTAL DISASTER." This tactic has become standard in most scientific and political debate today.

In these kinds of debates, I'd want to see a full enumeration of costs and benefits, supported with [credible] evidence, from both sides.
2013-02-10 12:05:10 PM  
3 votes:
i577.photobucket.com
2013-02-10 11:00:00 AM  
3 votes:
Monsanto is in violation of the DMCA by selling a product which enables copying of a patented product.

/I am very clearly not a lawyer.
2013-02-10 05:40:19 PM  
2 votes:
God, all that jawing, when all I wanted to do was leave this here

4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-02-10 03:17:07 PM  
2 votes:
If I were into biotechnology I could totally see homebrewing Roundup resistant weeds to take down Monsanto.  It'd be glorious.
2013-02-10 02:58:57 PM  
2 votes:
As I understand it, from reading the article, when a farmer purchases Monsanto directly from Monsanto or one of its agents, they sign a contract agreeing not to save and plant progeny seeds.  In this instance, the farmer purchased seeds from a third party and didn't sign such an agreement, skirting the contract issue, but not the patent issue.

This farmer knew the majority of the seed he purchased were Monsanto progeny seed as evidenced by his use of Roundup on his crops, which would have killed this entire crop otherwise.  Clearly Monsanto wants the court to uphold their patent of their seeds and the progeny of the same, when purchased without signing the standard Monsanto agreement.

However, even if the court issues an opinion adverse to Monsanto's patent, not all is lost for Monsanto as it could require everyone who purchases their Round Up product to sign an agreement to only use it on crops grown from seed purchased from Monsanto.

That would actually be the best resolution as it would allow any farmer to purchase seed from third parties and grow them.  As long as the farmer don't use Round Up on their crops they are not taking advantage of Monsanto patent that makes the seed resistant to Round Up, and shouldn't have to worry about being dragged into court if Monsanto tested some of the harvested crop and fount it contained some their progeny crop.
2013-02-10 02:27:45 PM  
2 votes:
It isn't really advertised, but just as a side note: Monsanto does spot field checks where Roundup-Ready crops are planted, pulls plant samples, and runs chemical tests to make sure that you are actually using Roundup brand herbicide and not another glyphosate product. Using any other glyphosate product voids your seed warranties and production guarantees.

Car manufacturers and dealers tried a similar thing with fluids and filters and a federal law was enacted over it. They stated that their drivetrain warranties would be void if you failed to use OEM filters and fluids at dealer shops. The enacted act requires anything that voids a warranty to be provided free of charge by the dealer. The 'voided warranty' thing quickly died.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
"No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the [Federal Trade] Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor."

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."

Obviously, this wouldn't be applicable to replanting GM seed, but it would seem to apply regarding the required use of branded herbicide manufactured only by the owner of the seed patent and license distributor.
2013-02-10 01:09:03 PM  
2 votes:

Champion of the Sun: but they need some guarantee of ROI


There's not such thing as a guarantee of ROI.
Are the progeny seeds the result of sexual reproduction?  If so, even though the progeny contains the modified genes, the total genetic makeup isn't what was bought from Monsanto.  Wouldn't that figure into the "copy of our patented thing" argument?  And who want a major portion of a food crop having the same genetics?  Sounds risky.
2013-02-10 12:59:46 PM  
2 votes:

jtown: If Monsanto is so good at this genetic manipulation they can put a man on the moon, they should be able to modify their seeds so that they're incapable of producing more than one generation.


FTFY. Technology does not generalize that way.

Of course, when they were working to put a terminator gene in their products, there was such an enormous outcry that they had to reverse their plans.
2013-02-10 12:58:32 PM  
2 votes:

Thisbymaster: For no reason whatsoever should a company be able to copyright a living thing, or dna.  That allows for them to "copyright" people which is slavery. I want this and all the bull shiat the MPAA to come tumbling down.  If there needs to be laws to make your company profitable then your company shouldn't profitable.


Copyright © 1999 - 2013 Fark, Inc
2013-02-10 12:52:25 PM  
2 votes:

meat0918: I don't buy Monsanto's claim, and I'm a big biotech supporter.

Let the unis do the research if investors won't pony up the cash.  They'll probably be less evil anyways.

//Monsanto's business practices have done more damage to gmo than anything else.


By the same token, eugenics was sensible social policy until the Nazis spoiled it for everyone, amirite?

GMO is one option, true. But so is cutting the human race by two-thirds, which would ease up the ever-increasing pressure to produce more food on the same land. And no student of history can claim it's the road less travelled. Reduce demand, and the pressing need for GMO to eliminate the tithe given to pests and to further mod yields in an upward direction, irrespective of the consequences, is itself reduced.

Hell, why not mod HUMANS to halve their size and to harbour colonies of symbiotic photosynthetic eukaryotes under their skins to yield energy in the sunlight? Ten billion hybrid greenish sunshine dwarves sounds pretty damn Disney to me.

/I have the strangest future boner right now.
2013-02-10 12:50:41 PM  
2 votes:
For the couple of mosanto loving retards in this thread:

Genetically modified food has absolutely nothing to do with crop yield increases.
It has to do with modifying a plant so you can spray roundup all over it to kill the weeds below.
Weeds are now becoming immune to roundup.
Some plants monsanto has infused with its own pesticides.

/No one should ever be allowed to own the copyright/patent food crops.
2013-02-10 12:45:09 PM  
2 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Canton: No seed and no corporation should have a monopoly over a food crop.

The other side is to force farmers to use inferior seeds.  Sounds like a guarantee of diminished returns year after year is worse than an unlikely possibility of a blight on Monsanto specific soy.  I'm no farmer or agricultural scientist, but how likely is a blight to hit gm crops but not unmodified ones?


1) Look up "herd immunity". If there were fields of GM crops to windward, the pests would die of hunger (largely) before getting to the non-GM field.
2) Non-GM crops, even spotty, blighted, non-GM crops, command a premium from customers willing to purchase "organic" foodstuffs, and who are rapidly being trained in the store aisle to pay $2.29/lb. for small, scabby local apples over $0.89/lb. for waxy, giant pesticide-coated apple-beasts from Chile.

Whether this affects you or not, and whether the science is correct or not, a lot of people are attributing their ailments to an increasingly monkeyed-with food chain and its chemistry set approach to profitability. Such people are willing to directly support local farmers with pre-paid contracts, at a cost 200-300% above that charged at the supermarket, in order to get a short and arguably sustainable food chain, all the links of which they can personally inspect for evil, Roundup, and evil.

Are they delusional? No more so than having blind faith that Monsanto's assertion that GM is "harmless! Really!" is delusional.

i432.photobucket.com
2013-02-10 12:26:50 PM  
2 votes:
ModernLuddite:
But I guess you can do whatever the fark you want if you have an ass load of money.

1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-02-10 12:11:53 PM  
2 votes:

jaytkay: In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.


static6.businessinsider.com
Yummy Roundup!
2013-02-10 12:10:50 PM  
2 votes:
On the one hand, I understand why a company would want to protect its investment. What's the point in spending hundreds of millions or billions in R&D and other costs to develop a seed, sell it one time, then everyone can just plant the progeny from the first crop and never have to buy more seeds from the original company. On the other hand, there is going to far and being complete pricks by pulling an RIAA.
2013-02-10 08:21:29 AM  
2 votes:
Psa: Linked to page 3 of the article. Bad Subby.
2013-02-10 10:24:21 PM  
1 votes:

g4lt: erveek: encyclopediaplushuman: I like this guy. Getting a law suit Monsanto v. Anything to an appellate level is impressive, but the Supreme Court is astounding.

To go to the Roberts Supreme Court and expect to win against a giant multinational corporation is beyond astounding.

Uhm, they ARGUE on 2/19.  Nobody's won squat.


Uhm, EXPECT to win. Here, I'll bold it for you, too.
2013-02-10 04:39:12 PM  
1 votes:
It's been 23 years since the day I wandered into the Walmarts plant section while waiting on my wife to finish shopping. They had a twelve pack of hot banana peppers at a clearance sale for two bucks so I got two flats. They were some mighty good plants, had a fine flavor and produced prodigiously, so at the end of the year I prepared the seeds to grow the next year. When they came up the next year they were a different crop altogether, the plants were not as hardy, produced normal peppers in the first burst and then only stunted peppers afterwards.

I took them in to the county agent to see what was wrong and he immediately identified them as Monsanto genetically modified terminator plants--plants that supposedly have sterile seeds. All that work down the tubes because some needledick varmint figured out a way to make more money selling farked up plants but didn't bother to tell you. This so pissed me off that I swore never to use Monsanto products again and started looking into what products they made that I used. All the fertilizer I used was Monsanto, so I did some studying on alternative means and started using chicken manure, only you had to go fetch it and then dry it out otherwise it would burn the plants. It was extra work, but I switched, way back, when fertilizer was still cheap. Now the price of fertilizer is four times what it was while the price of the chicken manure to me is a tank of gas and sitting around for several hours and catching up with the lonely old dude who runs the chicken farm. He quit charging me for the manure when he sold out to a corporation. It saves me several thousand dollars a year and it's been more than twenty years since the switch. So I figure I'm doing my part to stamp out evil in the world and saving big bucks at the same time.

So fark Monsanto up the ass with a red hot piece of two inch rebar. And then double back and do the fartblast nine (Scotus)
the same way because you already know how this is going to end up once it hits those "corporations are people" slimeball scumsuckers.

/Selling farked up plants that don't seed is an abomination.
2013-02-10 04:18:25 PM  
1 votes:

Valiente: ED-209


and here it is:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-02-10 03:10:22 PM  
1 votes:
Canton:

I'm not an agricultural scientist either. I don't know what the likelihood is of a blight hitting a particular variety of crop, gm or not. But it's possible, isn't it?

Now that's just bananas.

No, I mean it.  Now, just bananas.  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2995/are-bananas-about-to-be c ome-extinct

/summary, YES.  A blight wiped out the variety of banana called Gros Michel, so all the farmers started growing Cavendish.  Now a Cavendish blight is brewing.  Doesn't take much brains to figure the same scenario could happen to a staple crop.
2013-02-10 02:39:56 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA:
An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, "would devastate innovation in biotechnology," which involves "notoriously high research and development costs."

FARK you guys. I'm all for innovation in biotechnology, just as I am for measures to prevent digital piracy...but because you guys went total FARKing douchenozzle FARKwit about it, FARK you.

I have exactly as much sympathy for Monsanto as I do for the RIAA folks.

With any luck, the SCOTUS will dissolve Monsanto as a company.
2013-02-10 02:13:03 PM  
1 votes:

opiumpoopy: PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

In a sane world, Monsanto get a 20 year patent ending in c. 2016 and then any farmer can do whatever they like with the seeds.

It's IP law that sucks more than Monsanto.


I would agree except Monsanto has had a hand in making IP law so shiatty.  True to form for every major corporation, government is their main weapn to wield against their competition.
2013-02-10 02:08:25 PM  
1 votes:
If Monsanto loses, I wonder what will happen to the prices of Roundup-resistant seed and feed soybeans.
2013-02-10 01:59:42 PM  
1 votes:

Valiente: Hell, why not mod HUMANS to halve their size and to harbour colonies of symbiotic photosynthetic eukaryotes under their skins to yield energy in the sunlight? Ten billion hybrid greenish sunshine dwarves sounds pretty damn Disney to me.


Or just  modify humans to eat weeds and like it.  No need for Roundup or Roundup resistant soybeans.
2013-02-10 01:51:47 PM  
1 votes:

dryknife: Super marijuana seeds by Monsanto coming to your Co-op soon.


Look out, your high will technically be owned by Monsanto.

I'm not sure what that means, but their lawyers do.
2013-02-10 01:44:22 PM  
1 votes:

dionysusaur: If your impossibly valuable IP goes airborne in pollen, you have not adequately protected your work.  This crap infects nearby fields of Monasanto-IP-free crops and they will sue your ass for letting that happen.  It also infects weeds, rendering them Round-Up(tm)-Ready(tm^2).

Same for the GM techniques that put BT in grain crops - now that it's in wide use, the insects are adapting quickly.  The reason this is a problem is that BT, a naturally occurring pesticide, is the only one a certified Organic Farmer can use.  Once it's no longer effective, he'll be driven out of Organic farming and into the petrochemical arms of Monsanto/ADM/BASF and allwe get any more is frankenfood of unproven long-term safety.


To my knowledge, Only one example of that has happened, with RR canola.  It crossed with a wild brassica, and you ended up with a wimpy cross that got out competed by the pure bred wild cousins.  RR resistance isn't the only thing that comes with cross pollination, our domesticated plants weaknesses in wild environments comes too.

A lot of round up resistance was already there, before RoundUp ever existed.  We've just selected for it.

//This is not an excuse to continue spraying herbicide willy nilly, just correcting a few things.
2013-02-10 01:43:36 PM  
1 votes:
I'm sure many of you have seen this or at least heard of it, but I'll just leave the link here.

The world according to monsanto
2013-02-10 01:41:55 PM  
1 votes:

Satosuke: Bondith: utah dude: Bondith: utah dude: FizixJunkee: jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.

expand your search to include a certain competitor based in Europe, buddy, and you'll see things that make WWII Germany look like a health spa for Jews.

Instead of dropping hints and flirting with Godwin, how about you just tell us instead of making us play guessing games?  Maybe provide a link or two to back up your assertions.

yeah, no. i'm done.

So you've got nothing.  Gotcha.

I'm gonna guess BASF, but who knows what Mr. Paranoid is talking about.


Actually I amend that. A quick googling makes Syngenta way more likely. Their 'controversies' list on Wikipedia is several times longer than BASF and reads like a conspiracy theorist's wet dream.
2013-02-10 01:39:52 PM  
1 votes:
2013-02-10 01:36:43 PM  
1 votes:

Bondith: utah dude: FizixJunkee: jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.

expand your search to include a certain competitor based in Europe, buddy, and you'll see things that make WWII Germany look like a health spa for Jews.

Instead of dropping hints and flirting with Godwin, how about you just tell us instead of making us play guessing games?  Maybe provide a link or two to back up your assertions.


The big three competitors to Monsanto in Europe are Bayer CropScience AG, BASF AG, and Sygenta AG. He's eliminated Bayer, so flip a coin.
2013-02-10 01:19:03 PM  
1 votes:

Day_Old_Dutchie: They have deep pockets to pay off the politicians, judges and other assorted scum in suits, who can't resist that lure of that sweet, sweet money.
They have to make sure their precious shareholders get their butts kissed in an appropriate manner.


EvilEgg: Too bad the Supremes were off their radar. They never thought they'd have to deal with a judge that wasn't in flyover country.


Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas always rule against the little guy in favor of the powerful.

No need for Monsanto to buy the cow when they get the milk for free.
2013-02-10 01:14:18 PM  
1 votes:
If your impossibly valuable IP goes airborne in pollen, you have not adequately protected your work.  This crap infects nearby fields of Monasanto-IP-free crops and they will sue your ass for letting that happen.  It also infects weeds, rendering them Round-Up(tm)-Ready(tm^2).

Same for the GM techniques that put BT in grain crops - now that it's in wide use, the insects are adapting quickly.  The reason this is a problem is that BT, a naturally occurring pesticide, is the only one a certified Organic Farmer can use.  Once it's no longer effective, he'll be driven out of Organic farming and into the petrochemical arms of Monsanto/ADM/BASF and allwe get any more is frankenfood of unproven long-term safety.
2013-02-10 01:14:15 PM  
1 votes:

utah dude: I really wish Americans would stop attacking Monsanto. Their business practices,  even the sum-history of their environmental damage,is so much less than their major competitor (hint, based in Europe) - - if people only knew what was going on over there. omfg.


LOL Don't criticize Hitler because Stalin was so much worse!

Valiente: GMO is one option, true. But so is cutting the human race by two-thirds, which would ease up the ever-increasing pressure to produce more food on the same land.


We already produce far more food than is needed. We produce so much damn unneeded corn that we don't know what to do with it, which is why we have shiat like HFCS and ethanol.
2013-02-10 01:10:06 PM  
1 votes:
The progeny argument is interesting... Wouldn't this suggest that if you had IVF to have a kid, that your kid could be sue for having their own kid naturally?
2013-02-10 01:09:41 PM  
1 votes:
Bondith: An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, "would devastate innovation in biotechnology," which involves "notoriously high research and development costs."

Of fark off, you greedy farking farkers.

Champion of the Sun: How are they not right though?  I hate to defend agribusiness, but they need some guarantee of ROI if we want them to keep improving our crops.  They're evil for a million other reasons, like the whole pollination creep thing where they're suing farmers for cross bred crops.


Very good point. They should have good ROI. HOWEVER - their ROI shouldn't be so high that it imposes an extractive cost on the rest of the economy.
2013-02-10 12:57:00 PM  
1 votes:
For no reason whatsoever should a company be able to copyright a living thing, or dna.  That allows for them to "copyright" people which is slavery. I want this and all the bull shiat the MPAA to come tumbling down.  If there needs to be laws to make your company profitable then your company shouldn't profitable.
2013-02-10 12:48:43 PM  
1 votes:

Snargi: I am against any company that genetically alters anything.


Does that include farmers practicing selective breeding?
2013-02-10 12:45:08 PM  
1 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Canton: No seed and no corporation should have a monopoly over a food crop.

The other side is to force farmers to use inferior seeds.  Sounds like a guarantee of diminished returns year after year is worse than an unlikely possibility of a blight on Monsanto specific soy.  I'm no farmer or agricultural scientist, but how likely is a blight to hit gm crops but not unmodified ones?


I'm not an agricultural scientist either. I don't know what the likelihood is of a blight hitting a particular variety of crop, gm or not. But it's possible, isn't it?

Think of it this way. If commercial farmers used a variety of seeds and breeds, heritage, genetically modified, and otherwise, then our food supply might take a bit of a hit, but it would also be ensured against the hit a blight could bring. Right now, if a blight hit Monsanto soy, then there goes (potentially) 90% of the crop. If there were more variety out there, chances of a blight-resistant crop existing and surviving out there would rise. Genetic variety is very much like insurance, and agribusiness seems to be forcing farmers into something of a genetic bottleneck, which is not good. Just ask a cheetah.
2013-02-10 12:35:16 PM  
1 votes:
If Monsanto is so good at this genetic manipulation, they should be able to modify their seeds so that they're incapable of producing more than one generation.  Then they wouldn't need to rely on lawyers and courts to enforce their will.
2013-02-10 12:35:16 PM  
1 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Bondith: An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, "would devastate innovation in biotechnology," which involves "notoriously high research and development costs."

Of fark off, you greedy farking farkers.

How are they not right though?  I hate to defend agribusiness, but they need some guarantee of ROI if we want them to keep improving our crops.  They're evil for a million other reasons, like the whole pollination creep thing where they're suing farmers for cross bred crops.


Companies have been doing product development for years and making a profit.  There is no need to change the business model from "make a better product and sell it" to "we dictate to the customer what they can and cannot do with the product we sell them."
2013-02-10 12:33:04 PM  
1 votes:

utah dude: I really wish Americans would stop attacking Monsanto. Their business practices,  even the sum-history of their environmental damage,is so much less than their major competitor (hint, based in Europe) - - if people only knew what was going on over there. omfg.


Bayer?

Fark Bayer.

Fark them in their bee killing you know whats!
2013-02-10 12:32:19 PM  
1 votes:
I don't buy Monsanto's claim, and I'm a big biotech supporter.

Let the unis do the research if investors won't pony up the cash.  They'll probably be less evil anyways.

//Monsanto's business practices have done more damage to gmo than anything else.
2013-02-10 12:31:02 PM  
1 votes:
I really wish Americans would stop attacking Monsanto. Their business practices,  even the sum-history of their environmental damage,is so much less than their major competitor (hint, based in Europe) - - if people only knew what was going on over there. omfg.
2013-02-10 12:22:41 PM  
1 votes:
Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: You always get the feeling that Monsanto would manufacture soylent green if they thought they could get away with it.

Who says they aren't working on it?
2013-02-10 12:19:06 PM  
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.  I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani Umbrella

Soylent any day now.

ftfy


Re-ftfy
2013-02-10 12:18:11 PM  
1 votes:

Arthur Jumbles: jaytkay: In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]
Yummy Roundup!


Your link already has an update in it that disputes the findings you're asserting.  Yeah, round up is poison.  That's why it's not sold in the beverage aisle.
2013-02-10 12:16:44 PM  
1 votes:

Arthur Jumbles: jaytkay: In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]
Yummy Roundup!


I'm not defending Monsanto, but ANYTHING, with enough time, will cause giant tumors in rats.
2013-02-10 12:03:09 PM  
1 votes:
Monsanto legal staff:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report