Who Owns Seeds? Monsanto Says Not You

a very interesting discussion here. The only problem is that we learned in the supreme court desision regarding the Affordabel Care Act that supreme court desisions ar for sale. Now! which of these has the most money.

Monsanto DuPont & Obama

President Obama knows that agribusiness cannot be trusted with the regulatory powers of government. On the campaign trail in 2007, he promised: We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests ahead of the special interests.

But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto, Dupont and the other pesticide and genetic engineering companies know they'll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration. President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms:



Michael Taylor former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

Roger Beachy former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Islam Siddiqui Vice President of theMonsanto and Dupont-fundedpesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative.

Rajiv Shah former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama's USDA Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID.

Elena Kagan who, as President Obama's Solicitor General, took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court.

Ramona Romero corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA.

Monsanto Sues Small Family Farmers:


Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada, whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn't matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto's genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, "I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract.


If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots - destroy what they have worked on for 40 years - I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away."


Rodney Nelson's family farm is being forced into a similar lawsuit by Monsanto.


Support Schmeiser, Nelson and hundreds of other farmers who are being forced to pay Monsanto to have their fields contaminated by genetically modified organisms.


Monsanto Brings Small Family Dairy Farmer to Court


Oakhurst Dairy has been owned and operated by the same Maine family since 1921, and Monsanto recently attempted to put them out of business. Oakhurst, like many other dairy producers in the U.S., has been responding to consumer demand to provide milk free of rBGH, a synthetic hormone banned (for health reasons) in every industrialized country other than the U.S.


Monsanto, the number one producer of the rBGH synthetic steroid, sued Oakhurst, claiming they should not have the right to inform their customers that their dairy products do not contain the Monsanto chemical. Given the intense pressure from the transnational corporation, Oakhurst was forced to settle out of court, leaving many other dairies vulnerable to similar attacks from Monsanto.


Monsanto Hid PCB Pollution for Decades



ANNISTON, Ala. -- On the west side of Anniston, the poor side of Anniston, the people grew berries in their gardens, raised hogs in their back yards, caught bass in the murky streams where their children swam and played and were baptized. They didn't know their dirt and yards and bass and kids -- along with the acrid air they breathed -- were all contaminated with toxic chemicals. They didn't know they lived in one of the most polluted patches of America.


Now they know. They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate-giant concealed what it did and what it knew... (Read more...)


Source and you can read more here...

Don't say I haven't been tell'in ya's...

Franc the family farm looks lots different today than in those years. Now we have family Corperations, I am part of two of these. But it very much is still the back bone of the system we currently have. In days of old we didn't make enough money to get the giant Agri business Corps interesed, when we would do it and better for less. They just decided to control inputs and gain the posession of the crops at harvest for their "fair" share...

Regards, Kirk

But to the topic at hand - who owns the seeds the farmers signed papers for, stating seeds are not theirs.

No matter how much these evil corporations are hated, despised, avoid OSHA rules, flip off the epa, etc, etc, don't sign a contract that you can not abide by.

I always held farmers amongst the most honorable of all citizens, yet here we have farmers claiming farmers can not stand by their word or signature!

Another perspective being shot to hell.

waybomb said:

If you sign a piece of paper that says you won't reuse the seeds, well, end of story. Be honorable and do not reuse the seeds. You signed, right?

Seems it would not be enforceable unless both sides benefited. And it seems both sides do.

If you don't like the deal, move on and don't sign.

Spoken from a non farmer city slicker. But nonetheless a bit of understanding of contract law.

Click to expand...

This: Same farmer (Bowmen) as entry post story is expanded here...

U.S. agriculture wary as Monsanto heads to Supreme Court

(Reuters) - A 75-year-old Indiana grain farmer will take on global seed giant Monsanto Co at the U.S. Supreme Court next week in a patent battle that could have ramifications for the biotechnology industry and possibly the future of food production.

The highest court in the United States will hear arguments on Tuesday in the dispute, which started when soybean farmer Vernon Bowman bought and planted a mix of unmarked grain typically used for animal feed. The plants that grew turned out to contain the popular herbicide-resistant genetic trait known as Roundup Ready that Monsanto guards closely with patents.

The St. Louis, Mo.-based biotech giant accused Bowman of infringing its patents by growing plants that contained its genetics. But Bowman, who grows wheat and corn along with soybeans on about 300 acres inherited from his father, argued that he used second-generation grain and not the original seeds covered by Monsanto's patents.

A central issue for the court is the extent that a patent holder, or the developer of a genetically modified seed, can control its use through multiple generations of seed.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the dispute has sparked broad concerns in the biotech industry as a range of companies fear it will result in limits placed on their own patents of self-replicating technologies.

At the same time, many farmer groups and biotech crop critics hope the Supreme Court might curb what they say is a patent system that gives too much power to biotech seed companies like Monsanto.

"I think the case has enormous implications," said Dermot Hayes, an Iowa State University agribusiness and economics professor who believes Monsanto should prevail. "If Monsanto were to lose, many companies would have a reduced incentive for research in an area where we really need it right now. The world needs more food."

The court battle has ballooned into a show-down that merges contentious matters of patent law with an ongoing national debate about the merits and pitfalls of genetically altered crops and efforts to increase food production.

More than 50 organizations - from environmental groups to intellectual property experts - as well as the U.S. government, have filed legal briefs hoping to sway the high court.

Companies developing patented cell lines and tools of molecular biotechnology could lose their ability to capture the ongoing value of these technologies if the Supreme Court sides with Bowman, said Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

The case also is important to regenerative medicine that relies on stem cell technologies. A stem cell by definition is a cell that can self-replicate, thus the case may answer the question of whether a patentee can control progeny of a patented stem cell, according to Antoinette Konski, a partner with Foley & Lardner's intellectual property practice group.

Monsanto, a $13 billion behemoth in agricultural seed and chemical sales, also sees the case as much bigger than itself.

"This case really centers on the question of twenty-first century technology such as what we bring in agriculture and other companies bring for say stem cell research or nanotechnology.... and how they're going to be handled under principles of intellectual property law," said Monsanto general counsel Dave Snively.

SELF-REPLICATING

Because seeds self-replicate, creating progeny when planted, they are unlike more traditional patented products. Using a computer or smartphone does not create more computers or phones. But using a seed can make new seeds.

For generations all around the world, farmers have practiced the art of saving seed, holding onto some of the grain they harvest each season to plant in a subsequent season. The advent of patented biotech seeds has changed that as Monsanto and rival seed developers barred farmers from seed saving, arguing that if farmers do not buy new seed each year the companies cannot recoup the millions they spend to develop the specialty seeds.

Transgenic crops, which splices genes from other species into plant DNA, have given farmers crops that resist insects and tolerate treatments of herbicide, making killing weeds easier for farmers. The majority of U.S. corn and soybean acres are now planted with patented biotech seeds.

The case before the Supreme Court traces its roots to 1999, when Bowman decided to plant a "second crop" of soybeans after he harvested winter wheat from the farmstead he runs near Sandborn, Indiana.

While he used Monsanto's Roundup Ready engineered seeds for his main, or "first" crop, Bowman said he decided to use inexpensive commodity grain that he could purchase from a local grain elevator for his "second" planting of soybeans in late June. Yields are generally lower for late-planted soybeans because conditions tend to be more optimal in April and May.

The mixture of grain Bowman bought, which he dubbed "junk," carried no patent technology agreement and no directive prohibiting seed saving as do the bagged and branded soybean seeds sold by Monsanto and other seed companies.

The soybean crop turned out so good that Bowman saved some of the seed generated by the plants and sowed them the following year for another late crop. He repeated the process year after year, sometimes supplementing his second planting with more commodity grain he used as seed. All the while he continued to buy first-generation seed each year for his main crop of beans. For those purchases, he signed required "technology agreements" pledging not to save the offspring of those seeds.

Monsanto began investigating Bowman's planting activities in 2006 and asserted that even though he was not saving seed from the progeny of the first-generation seeds he bought, his use of commodity grain and the progeny was a patent violation.

Bowman argued that Monsanto's rights to the seeds he purchased from the grain elevator were exhausted because they were not the first generation seeds other farmers had purchased and planted, but rather a mix of later generation progeny.

"It didn't occur to my mind that this would be a problem," said Bowman, who doesn't have a computer at home so he goes to the library to read about his case on the Internet. "Farmers have always been allowed to go buy elevator grain and use for seed. You have no idea what kind of seed you're buying at an elevator. They claim I'm making a new seed by planting it. But that's far-fetched reasoning."

Bowman said he just wanted cheaper seeds. His legal brief states the technology fees for Roundup Ready soybeans have risen to $17.50 per bag by 2009 from about $4.50 in 1996.

BIG STAKES FOR BOTH SIDES

A lower court ruled in favor of Monsanto, and in May 2010 it ordered Bowman to pay the company $84,456. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals also sided with Monsanto in September 2011.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case has raised the hopes of those backing Bowman.

In one of a dozen briefs filed in his support, farmer, environmental and food safety groups claim the courts have carved out an exception to existing patent law that gives biotech companies too much control. They want the Supreme Court to broaden farmers' abilities to use seed, not restrict them.

"Through a patenting system that favors the rights of corporations over the rights of farmers and citizens, our food and farming system is being held hostage by a handful of companies," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, one of the groups supporting Bowman. "Nothing less than the future of food is at stake."

Bowman's attorneys allege specifically that the appellate court created a "conditional sale" exception to a long-standing doctrine of patent exhaustion in a way that conflicts with existing law.

But Monsanto backers say without extended patent protection, technology companies will not be able to recoup their investment in research and development, and advantageous new technologies could be shelved.

"This case presents a matter of great importance to America's farmers and the decision will have acute impacts on how agricultural producers will... meet the nutritional demands of a growing global population," states one brief filed by 20 soybean, corn, wheat and sugar beet growers groups.

Back on his farm in Indiana, Bowman is looking forward to his trip to Washington and said he does not understand what all the fuss is about. He said few farmers make use of commodity grain for planting, and he doesn't see how a few hundred acres of soybeans hurts Monsanto's billions in annual revenues.

"I bought new seed every year for my first crop. If I had such a good scheme why did I do that," said Bowman.

"If I done something wrong I should pay for it. If I didn't then I shouldn't. I don't think I did," he said.

Read it's the seeds purchased legally at a grain elevator and raised is the crop and issue he's being sued over...or should I say screwed over...

Soybean seed costs muchmore that soybean feed. for a reason.
Corn seed costs more than corn feed for a reason.

For those growers who Hybidize varieties to create seed, there is the protection that subsequent generations will not prove to the hybrid strain.
Their investment in the effort is therefore protected.
What protects the investmentof time and resources expended for the GM seed? Only the protection of a patent.

Whether one is replicting an I -Pad by manufacture or a seed by planting and harvest, the process of duplication is veridical. Therefore if one violates the design patent, then so does the other.

Even if the copycat villian is a 75 year old man scrubbing out a living on 300 acres or the greeny tree huggers don't like the product.

I want pharmacuetical companies finding the cure for my cancer, my bronchitis, my wife's blood pressure or her frozen shoulder syndrome. I don't care if they make a profit when they create a discovery which can be simply duplicated.
do care that they feel the risk is worth the cost because they will make the profit for their efforts. And be allowed to keep it.

Monsanto probably did this the year that RR I soybeans patent ran out. That year it was IMPARATIVE nothing surrvive and could be planted as they would have an expired patent to defend. IF any of that first generation seed should have shown up in the market place later there would be nothing they could do to prevent is use, and more importantly it's spread as they wouldn't be a part of the profit picture on the old tech soybeans. Their rights to them would have been gone. They had to make double sure to get the last of the gen one beans, and I beleive this case is about that as reporters are good at not fully understanding, or they have not been told the rest of the story...

Monsanto's lawyers should get an ass whoopin for not foreseeing this contingency and not writing it into the contracts. Yup a good ass whoopin'..

Grey area here, Hope the farmer prevails and a bit of Monsanto become public property. Execept they no doubt have this farmers soybeans taken care of. They were a extreme liability if planted in fallowing years...

Regards, Kirk

FrancSevin said:

Soybean seed costs muchmore that soybean feed. for a reason.
Corn seed costs more than corn feed for a reason.

For those growers who Hybidize varieties to create seed, there is the protection that subsequent generations will not prove to the hybrid strain.
Their investment in the effort is therefore protected.
What protects the investmentof time and resources expended for the GM seed? Only the protection of a patent.

Whether one is replicting an I -Pad by manufacture or a seed by planting and harvest, the process of duplication is veridical. Therefore if one violates the design patent, then so does the other.

Even if the copycat villian is a 75 year old man scrubbing out a living on 300 acres or the greeny tree huggers don't like the product.

I want pharmacuetical companies finding the cure for my cancer, my bronchitis, my wife's blood pressure or her frozen shoulder syndrome. I don't care if they make a profit when they create a discovery which can be simply duplicated.
do care that they feel the risk is worth the cost because they will make the profit for their efforts. And be allowed to keep it.

Click to expand...

I call it bull!!! If you owned adjacent property or fields to mine I'm sure you feel you'd have the right to grow anything you'd like because it's your property. Hell I feel exactly the same way but still, the evidence is telling us genetically engineered crops cannot coexist with organic or conventional crops. They usually end up contaminating every nearby field, turning those farmers into patent infringing criminals in the process a scenario no farmer on any continent could ever have imagined a couple of decades ago. Somehow someway somebody hast to recognize the property line on this issue.

Bamby said:

I call it bull!!! If you owned adjacent property or fields to mine I'm sure you feel you'd have the right to grow anything you'd like because it's your property. Hell I feel exactly the same way but still, the evidence is telling us genetically engineered crops cannot coexist with organic or conventional crops. They usually end up contaminating every nearby field, turning those farmers into patent infringing criminals in the process a scenario no farmer on any continent could ever have imagined a couple of decades ago. Somehow someway somebody hast to recognize the property line on this issue.

Click to expand...

Call it what yo want. I'm talking about patent law.

Your talkng smack about the law based on your phobias.

If GM crops are so bad,then the 75 year old farmer is perpetuating the sin. He, therefore, is also a villian. Why take his side?

FrancSevin said:

I want pharmaceutical companies finding the cure for my cancer, my bronchitis, my wife's blood pressure or her frozen shoulder syndrome. I don't care if they make a profit when they create a discovery which can be simply duplicated.
do care that they feel the risk is worth the cost because they will make the profit for their efforts. And be allowed to keep it.

Click to expand...

I give up, You're right as you're always right concerning every topic and subject anyone could think of posting. Anyway are you aware of the fact that you may be screwed on the miracle drugs you'd like to see developed to benefit you and you're wife? Well you may be big time... Many human genes have also been patented, some simply because of their discovery. That doesn't always lead to the patent owner actually using the gene they patented for really anything, but the can stop anyone who has found a beneficial use for the gene in their tracks. Fact is one they once they own the patent they can stop any and all future and ongoing research involving their patented gene.

So the reality of it is your miracle drug may actually exist somewhere on a shelf in some dark corner unable to help you or anyone else because someone else is holding the patent to themselves for a key genetic link or gene necessary to bring the drug to production.

Well the best solution then would be to purchase from elsewhere and dont give them any of your money.See how long they stay in business.

Bamby said:

I give up, You're right as you're always right concerning every topic and subject anyone could think of posting. Anyway are you aware of the fact that you may be screwed on the miracle drugs you'd like to see developed to benefit you and you're wife? Well you may be big time... Many human genes have also been patented, some simply because of their discovery. That doesn't always lead to the patent owner actually using the gene they patented for really anything, but the can stop anyone who has found a beneficial use for the gene in their tracks. Fact is one they once they own the patent they can stop any and all future and ongoing research involving their patented gene.

So the reality of it is your miracle drug may actually exist somewhere on a shelf in some dark corner unable to help you or anyone else because someone else is holding the patent to themselves for a key genetic link or gene necessary to bring the drug to production.

Click to expand...

I understand that you went to a lot of work to cut and paste legnthy articles to support you positiion. Doesn't make your express opinion factual or relavent.. Especialy so when most of the articles subject matter didn't discuss the point of law I was addressing. Or that this case as you continue to press, is addressing GM products, good or evill having nothing to do with Patent law.

The case is about patent law.

In fact there is nothing in patent law that states an item patented must actually work as described, good or bad. A patented medicine doesn't have to cure anthing.

I never said I was right. I expressed an opinion that the law was. I believe patent law to be a rightous law, a neccesary one, and should be obeyed. You haven't shown that it was notby Monsanto. .. Only that you do not like the outcome in this case. Because it involved GM crops and Monsanto. That doesn't make me right or wrong.

The Farmer must show that he did not violate the patent.

The question of GM crops is ancilary to the patent.

The fact that you cannot seem to tell the difference might put your opinion to question. Particularly it's motivation and relavance. Which is what I have done. It's called a discusion.

As for future medicines, you can take you chances practicing what ever you believe about phamacology. Me, I learn what I can and discuss options with my doctor. We compare our "opinions" and proceed together on therapies. Sometimes he is right, sometimes my solutions turn out to be better.

Frankly I am so glad we have so many choices. This, thanks to the industry that creates them.

I am always amazed at how easily we vilify those industries that feed, clothe, warm and heal us, simply because they do so successfuly while simultaniously making a profit at it.

Farmers are getting in trouble for cross pollination should they we responsible for the wind and nature as well?

leadarrows said:

Farmers are getting in trouble for cross pollination should they we responsible for the wind and nature as well?

Click to expand...

In effect yes according to Monsanto.... I'm finding the issue interesting and have been looking much deeper into the issue with probably 20 or more windows left open since yesterday. It seems it's coming around to where farmers are no longer having a "choice". In general Monsanto's traits have contaminated virtually all seed-stock to the point to where virgin uncontaminated seed is for a practical purposes "unavailable".

Fact is the whole issue has now spawned research into breeding crops that can and will resist the Monsanto traits and being forced to pay them for the benefits of their contamination of your non Monsanto crops.

“Organic ready” corn aims to prevent GMO contamination

Frank Kutka is on a mission: to help save organic corn from GMO contamination. As acres of genetically modified corn increase—88% of this year’s US corn plantings are GM—it is becoming more difficult for organic and non-GMO farmers to prevent cross pollination—and contamination—from GM corn. Kutka, a plant breeder and coordinator of the Sustainable Ag Research and Education (SARE) program at North Dakota State University, recently received an $11,500 grant from the Organic Farming Research Foundation to develop what he calls “organic ready” corn.

Research on gene blocking traits

Kutka’s research focuses on a naturally occurring trait found in corn that makes it difficult for GM pollen to enter the corn silks thus preventing cross pollination. The trait is known as gametophytic incompatibility or GA1S and is not a new discovery, according to Kutka. “The trait has been known and used for decades. It was first used in popcorn in the 1950s and then in white corn varieties in the 1970s.”

Corn is pollinated when pollen grains come into contact with the silk and develop into pollen tubes. Plants containing the GA1S trait stifle pollen from corn not carrying the trait, thus preventing cross pollination.

“It’s not a perfect system, but it greatly reduces the risk of out-crossing,” says Kukta, who must work on the project in his spare time because of his full-time duties as SARE coordinator.

There are three pollen-blocking traits—GA1S, GA2S, and Teosinte Crossing Barrier (TCB). Kutka says GA2S is a recent discovery by Jerry Kermicle, a plant geneticist at the University of Wisconsin who also discovered the TCB trait. Both GA2S and TCB are found in teosinte, an ancestor of maize.

Have something that farmers can use”

Kutka and several fellow corn breeders: Margaret Smith at Cornell University, Walter Goldstein, Major Goodman and Chris Reberg-Horton at North Carolina State University, and Paul Scott and Jode Edwards at the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, are all working with the traits, aiming to develop pollen-blocking corn varieties for organic and non-GMO farmers.

The corn breeders aim to develop corn varieties that can be grown from North Dakota to North Carolina. “Wherever organic corn grows, hopefully we will have something that farmers can use,” Kutka says.

He says varieties with the GA1S trait could be available in 2-3 years while those with the GA2S trait will be available in five years.

Kutka calls the new corn varieties “organic ready” as a play on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM crops.

Patent issues

The project is complicated by patents on both the GA1S and TCB traits. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation owns a patent on TCB. Tom Hogemeyer, a corn breeder at Hogemeyer Hybrids in Hooper, Nebraska, patented the GA1S trait in 2005 and introduced a program called “PuraMaize” to license the trait to corn seed companies.

Kutka and other public corn breeders have opposed the patent because the trait has been used for decades.

Major Goodman believes Hogemeyer may have patented the trait to prevent Monsanto from doing so. “If Monsanto held the patent it would be a much more serious situation for people trying to use GA1S,” he says.

Goodman and Maury Johnson, president of Blue River Hybrids, both say that Tom Hogemeyer is flexible. “I think Tom is willing to work with people,” Johnson says.

The patent is also limited to the use of GA1S in yellow dent corn; it doesn’t apply to color corn varieties such as white, blue, and red or open pollinated corn.

Pioneer Hi-Bred recently purchased Hogemeyer Hybrids, but Tom Hogemeyer retains ownership of the GA1S patent, according to Chris Hogemeyer, the company’s executive vice president.

PuraMaize hybrids coming in 2012

Blue River Hybrids licensed PuraMaize/GA1S from Hogemeyer Hybrids several years ago and has conducted field trials since 2007. Johnson is pleased with the trials. “From what we’ve seen the PuraMaize corn is a competitive hybrid and the system seems to work the way it’s supposed to.”

Blue River will introduce three corn hybrids in 2012 with the PuraMaize trait. “The amount of seed will be limited in the first year until we get the seed stock ramped up,” Johnson says.

He predicts that organic and conventional non-GMO farmers will be interested in the hybrids.

Another organic and non-GMO corn seed company, Prairie Hybrids, is also field testing PuraMaize. “We will be testing it to see that it doesn’t pick up GMOs and to see how yields compare,” says Prairie Hybrids representative Maynard Kropf.

Great Harvest Organics says they don’t plan to introduce hybrids with the gene-blocking traits. A company representative said, “Our focus is on offering elite genetics to the organic market. The conversion process for this trait could slow that process down, so the question of whether or not the time lag is worth the potential yield loss of accessing elite germplasm in a timely manner, we feel has yet to be answered by the market.”

“The way we have to go”

SK Food International, a supplier of non-GMO and organic grains, developed an organic Red Crimson Corn variety with the GA1S trait and has grown it for the past three years on a few hundred acres.

“The trait is absolutely working well,” says Aaron Skyberg, SK Food marketing representative. “There have been zero issues with cross pollination.”

SK Food plans to introduce white and blue corn varieties with the GA1S trait.

Breeding the pollen-blocking traits into corn is a process that takes time, and Kutka understands that time is of the essence. “There is a lot of work on the breeders side, but I really see this as the way we have to go,” he says. “There is so much dominance by GM corn, and these tools offer great opportunities to reduce the chances for cross-pollination from GM corn.”

Here's a video on the topic....

GM Crops Farmer to Farmer

Update: as if their was any real doubt.

Supreme Court sides with Monsanto on seed suit

(MoneyWatch) In a closely watched patent case, Bowman vs. Monsanto, a unanimous Supreme Court held that Monsanto (MON) had the legal right to stop farmers from saving seeds from patented genetically modified crops one season and plant them the next.

The decision was critical to the agricultural biotechnology industry. Companies faced the prospect of developing new species of plants and animals and then effectively going into competition with the customers that used them. To farmers the ruling is a blow because it means that an old money-saving practice of keeping seeds from one of these GM crops and planting them the next season is not possible.

Critics slam Obama for "protecting" Monsanto
Companies attack proposal to label modified foods
Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research

Monsanto, the largest producer of genetically modified crops, created a series of plants, including soybeans, that can withstand the active ingredient glyphosate found in many weed killers, including the company's own Roundup. By planting the so-called Roundup Ready varieties, farmers can spray to kill weeds and other invasive plants, reducing the amount of labor necessary to keep the unwanted species from harming the money crops.

To protect their intellectual property, Monsanto make farmers license the seed use to one growing season and promise not to save seeds for later use. Otherwise, farmers could follow the practice of keeping out seeds for subsequent planting, limiting the amount of money Monsanto could make.

Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman, as other farmers did, planted two soybean crops a year. For the first crop, he would purchase Roundup Ready seeds from an authorized reseller. For the second crop, he went to a grain elevator -- an agricultural middleman that the local farmers sold to -- and purchased "commodity soybeans" intended for animal or human food use.

However, he then planted that seed for his second crop. Because most of them came from farms that also grew Monsanto varieties, Bowman knew he would effectively have Roundup Ready seed without paying Monsanto's price. Bowman then saved seed and replanted it for the second crop the next year.

After harvesting eight crops this way, Monsanto found out and sued Bowman. Bowman's lawyers tried a defense called patent exhaustion. Under U.S. patent law, once someone buys a patented product, they can do with it as they want without paying the patent holder again. This is similar to copyright law under which a consumer can buy a paper book, read it and then sell the used volume without owing anything to the publisher.

A federal district court rejected the argument and awarded damages of $84,456 to Monsanto. On Bowman's appeal, a court affirmed the original judgment.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts. Associate Justice Elena Kagan, author of the court's opinion, wrote the following:

Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention.

Click to expand...

The pivotal point is that Monsanto's seed is an example of "self-replicating technologies." The justices found that Bowman was effectively producing more product -- like buying a book and then printing new copies of the text -- rather than making use of one purchased product:

If simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention. The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years (as the Patent Act promises), but for only one transaction.

Click to expand...

The principle will likely apply to other agricultural products, such as genetically modified livestock.

There will be food for those who can afford it, organic, and non GMO. There will be food for the masses, and it will be all GMO. What do you want to eat, or grow?? Monsanto wants to feed the masses...

Finally planting corn yesterday, for the first time in 2013. The corn planted in late April here is still not up, and the ground is crusted and hard on the surface. It might have been a poor decision this year to plant ahead of the snow in early May. There is not much seed available for replanting this year with the drought of 2012. It could get real interesting if those fields do not emerge well....

Regards, Kirk

Hope the ground warms up and it makes a delayed emergence for you. We broke records for cold and frost and it will impact stuff that had just gotten out of the ground in the last 2 weeks. I see a lot of replanting if the loss is bad and if they can afford scarce seed.

After reading Bamby's last post I have to agree DS, it was the correct decision. Much like software, even though I can make a copy of most programs for backup, if I copied them and then tried to sell them that would be stealing. Much the same with those seeds, no matter how much I would prefer the ruling be the other way.

I willjust say toot! toot!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...mail&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130514MG


Interesting reading, and not what you want to see in our food stream....

Regards, Kirk

I wonder what the SCOTUS decision would have been, had the farmer only used beans\seeds bought from a grain elevator for each of his annual late season plantings (versus saving some of those beans for subsequent plantings in later years).

SCOTUS opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf

I wonder how they have the right to trespass and remove samples of your crop.