Bowman vs Monsanto, genetically modified soybean case

[Jack21222]

A VERY VERY VERY small percentage of the neighboring field. Know what else? Non-GMO crops do the same thing. So what's the difference? If a farmer wants to harvest for seed where do you think he is going to get the seed? From the place in the field where it is most unlikley to have crossed with anything else whether it is GMO or not.

And if he doesn't get the seed from where you suggest, and instead gets it from the cross-pollinated with Monsanto's seed, do you feel that Monsanto can sue?

 

[aquitaine]

And if he doesn't get the seed from where you suggest, and instead gets it from the cross-pollinated with Monsanto's seed, do you feel that Monsanto can sue?

From what I understand seeds cross pollinated with GMOs are sterile, aren't they?

 

[Averagesupernova]

And if he doesn't get the seed from where you suggest, and instead gets it from the cross-pollinated with Monsanto's seed, do you feel that Monsanto can sue?

I know they do tissue testing to determine the genetics. It can be proven exactly what the genetics are so the farmer can show that it was a cross. The farmer can show that no Roundup was sprayed so it is shown there is no attempt to benefit from Monsantos technology.
-
It's really irrelevant though. This sort of sloppiness is no different than getting bins mixed up between GMO and non-GMO and the guy ends up planting the wrong thing. Just plain sloppiness. It's no excuse.
-
As far as whether ANYONE can sue for anything, well, it seems anything goes in this country already. I don't feel THAT is right. I have served on enough jury duties to know that many cases should not make it to court, but they do. The way I have laid out the above, I don't think they should sue. But that doesn't mean they won't try. That is a strike against Monsanto, not the product or process.
-
I don't see it any different than someones teenage kid adding lots of aftermarket crap on their car and something falls of on the freeway and injures or kills someone. The excuse is: "Well I didn't know it would do that!". No excuse.

 

[edward]

Averagesupernova;4149167]A VERY VERY VERY small percentage of the neighboring field. Know what else? Non-GMO crops do the same thing. So what's the difference? If a farmer wants to harvest for seed where do you think he is going to get the seed? From the place in the field where it is most unlikley to have crossed with anything else whether it is GMO or not.

Tell that to Bayer AG.

Bayer CropScience has acknowledged one of these situations, agreeing to pay up to $750 million to about 11,000 farmers to compensate for contaminating two varieties of long-grain rice. It remains unclear whether the contamination occurred via cross-pollination or through other pathways. The settlement cost is in addition to other payments Bayer has been forced to make following jury decisions or settlements.

http://www.sej.org/publications/tipsheet/contamination-genetically-modified-rice-costly-bayer

 

[edward]

From what I understand seeds cross pollinated with GMOs are sterile, aren't they?

No they are not sterile that is a big part of the problem. That is why when Bowman bought what he thought was generic seed from a consumer market it turned out to be GMO seed.

Companies are trying to put terminator GMO crops on the market. The seed of the GMO crop would be sterile.

here is a good read on that situation.

http://www.banterminator.org/content/view/full/233

 

[aquitaine]

No they are not sterile that is a big part of the problem. That is why when Bowman bought what he thought was generic seed from a consumer market it turned out to be GMO seed.

Companies are trying to put terminator GMO crops on the market. The seed of the GMO crop would be sterile.

here is a good read on that situation.

http://www.banterminator.org/content/view/full/233

So basically they're evil because they are trying to do something to solve a legitimate problem with their products?

 

[Jack21222]

So basically they're evil because...

If you were any more hyperbolic, I'd think you were non-Euclidean.

 

[aquitaine]

If you were any more hyperbolic, I'd think you were non-Euclidean.

It's a statement made in light of an absurd claim. That somehow there's this vast corporate conspiracy to "force" people to use GM seeds with a terminator gene. Here's a quote from the site edward linked:

The biotechnology and seed industry is promoting Terminator as a ‘biosafety’ solution to disguise its true role as a biological means of preventing farmers from saving and re-using proprietary seed. Terminator has been widely condemned as a threat to food security for the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed.(1)

Which is totally nonsensical because no one is forcing those farmers to use GM products of any kind in the first place. Statements like this are designed to incite irrational fear and hate so that they can push a political agenda.

EDIT: I'll add on to that. The original complaint was that the seeds might cross pollinate with non modified crops, which is a reasonable thing to be concerned about. A terminator gene would solve this problem, but then those same people who complain about the problem complain about the solution and how it is being forced onto people. You see how the moving goalposts creates a no win scenario for Monsanto, Bayer, or these other companies that develop modified seed? There's an agenda behind this, and it has nothing to do with "protecting the people".

 

[edward]

So basically they're evil because they are trying to do something to solve a legitimate problem with their products?

Your choice of words not mine.

 

[Averagesupernova]

edward, I thought this thread was about soybeans. If you want to whine about rice start another thread.

 

[edward]

It's a statement made in light of an absurd claim. That somehow there's this vast corporate conspiracy to "force" people to use GM seeds with a terminator gene. Here's a quote from the site edward linked:

Whoa there I just used the first link that popped up because it explained what a terminator gene was. It was in reference to a your post about GMO seeds being sterile, and was related to the OP in that manner.

Those absurd claims are all over the Internet. It is a challenge to find a GMO link that doesn't include an "absurd claim".

The terminator gene might solve the ongoing problem with patent infringement. Yet it is also capable of destroying traditional farm saved seed as the link and many others mention.

Here is a more balanced link with the pros and cons of the terminator seed. It also makes reference to the tradition of saving seed.

http://www.genomebc.ca/education/articles/terminator-technology/

This is getting a bit off topic, but the law suit is just one aspect of a much larger and ongoing Debate relating to GMO crops. With newer and even more controversial patented GMO crops hitting the market the controversy isn't going to go away any time soon.

 

[edward]

edward, I thought this thread was about soybeans. If you want to whine about rice start another thread.

Why did I ever think that the thread was about a patent infringement law suit.

Cross pollination is cross pollination.

BTW you are doing a lot of posting and making claims without substantiating them with links to reliable sources.

 

[Averagesupernova]

edward, I'll break it down for you.
-
My post #27 is pretty clear. Why should I have to link to anything to prove that buried seeds won't likely blow around?
-
My post #35 states mainly that seed harvesting practices are similar between GMO and non-GMO. Is it so difficult to believe that it is desirable to harvest seed from a location that maintains true genetics instead of risking cross pollinating? You are the one who whines about cross-pollination so all of a sudden you question whether effort is put into avoiding it when non-GMO crops are involved on both sides of the property line? It looks to me that is the direction you are headed.
-
My post #38 is mostly my opinion but the genetics testing should be obvious since they can prove there are GMO traits in the plant, they can obviously prove that there also non-GMO traits, which would indicate a legitimate cross. Concerning the spraying of Roundup or not, records need to be kept of chemical application. A farmer should be able to prove with these as well as receipts of other herbicides purchased that the appropriate chemical was applied.
-
Do I really need to explain post #45? I honestly don't know anything about rice production and there may be a legitimate case there. I see no reason to clutter this thread with it. There have been other class action suits against seed/chemical companies as well and I don't plan on bringing them up.

 

[edward]

edward, I'll break it down for you.
-
My post #27 is pretty clear. Why should I have to link to anything to prove that buried seeds won't likely blow around?

O fcourse seed in the ground do not blow around The topic was cross pollination.

My post #35 states mainly that seed harvesting practices are similar between GMO and non-GMO. Is it so difficult to believe that it is desirable to harvest seed from a location that maintains true genetics instead of risking cross pollinating? You are the one who whines about cross-pollination so all of a sudden you question whether effort is put into avoiding it when non-GMO crops are involved on both sides of the property line? It looks to me that is the direction you are headed.

It looks to you ?? Is that a fact or an assumption?

If you say that I am whining one more time you will be reported. Show a little respect.

I have a gut feeling that you would really like to see this thread locked!

 

[Averagesupernova]

Actually I was sad to see the prop 37 thread closed.
-
Post #27 is CLEARLY about seeds blowing around.
-
Yes, it is my assumption. The point is that you are very aware of cross-pollination but it appears to me that you don't see that it should be an issue for the guy that makes his living raising the crop.
-
I have taken the liberty to exaggerate the following but felt it was necessary to get my point across. Your attitude about cross-pollination has appeared to me like this:
edward: "Holy cow we can't have these GMO and non-GMO crops next to each other, they will mingle!"
Averagesupernova: "But, non-GMO crops on both sides of the property line can mingle as well. Steps are taken to avoid harvesting seeds from places where it is likely they will cross."
edward: "Oh you cannot expect a farmer to do THAT!"

THEN, you throw the rice thing in there which is a different thing completely. I was not arguing about rice and I will not.

 

[edward]

Actually I was sad to see the prop 37 thread closed.
-
Post #27 is CLEARLY about seeds blowing around.
-
Yes, it is my assumption. The point is that you are very aware of cross-pollination but it appears to me that you don't see that it should be an issue for the guy that makes his living raising the crop.
-
I have taken the liberty to exaggerate the following but felt it was necessary to get my point across. Your attitude about cross-pollination has appeared to me like this:
edward: "Holy cow we can't have these GMO and non-GMO crops next to each other, they will mingle!"
Averagesupernova: "But, non-GMO crops on both sides of the property line can mingle as well. Steps are taken to avoid harvesting seeds from places where it is likely they will cross."
edward: "Oh you cannot expect a farmer to do THAT!"

THEN, you throw the rice thing in there which is a different thing completely. I was not arguing about rice and I will not.

OHH good lordy I was blaming you for the seed blowing around bit when you were actually responding to someone else's post. You have my sincere apology. My age is showing.

Here is a good read on the court case and I agree that it does look like Bowman tried to scam the system. Now he is trying to change the definition of everything. Yet a lot of people wonder if the system (patent infringement after the fact) was right in the first place

http://farmprogress.com/blogs-supreme-court-hears-biotech-seed-case-3752


As far as the cross pollination goes it is actually a growing problem. (no pun intended) There is a big market for organic crops and it is difficult to grow them without cross contamination.

Organic farmers do have rights too.

Monsanto's patent has expired on roundup and the patent on several GMO crops is coming up in 2014. Since weeds resistant to roundup are now a problem they actually have several new GMO crops ready. So does Bayer AG. Dow does actually want to market 2- 4 D resistant GMO
crops.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-usa-food-24-d-idUSBRE83N04I20120424

Even as the 2-4 D GMO crops are being developed I read that 2-4D resistant weeds have already been found.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816151812.htm

Both Monsanto and Bayer AG have new herbicides for their crops.

What I am wondering is, where does this all end? There is no silver bullet. How many generations of chemicals will we spray on the soil until nothing will grow on it but soap bubbles?

I still think that the rice link was appropriate.

 

[OmCheeto]

This reminds me of a thread when I first arrived at PF:

And, then, much later, Monsanto, who claims to always invent new seeds, had the cheek to steal an old Indian wheat variety and patent it as an invention. That was struck down in a four-month legal battle in the European patent office.

My apologies if this is a bit off topic, but that was a good, and enlightening thread, as should be all PF threads.

This thread strikes me as kind of whiny. Kind of like the last four years.

-------------------------------
ps. I hope edward is a PF friend of mine. He's a freakin' genius, IMHO.

 

[Averagesupernova]

What I am wondering is, where does this all end? There is no silver bullet. How many generations of chemicals will we spray on the soil until nothing will grow on it but soap bubbles?

I still think that the rice link was appropriate.

If you have been paying attention to all of this as long as I and others I know have then you would have asked this question about where it will end 30 years ago or more. Weeds have been developing resistance to herbicide since herbicides first came out. Most of us knew when Roundup ready crops became available that they were not the magic silver bullet. However, it was the best system most farmers had ever seen concerning weed control. Roundup is still quite effective on most weeds and will continue to be sprayed as long as it is effective. Then there is the issue of species shift. What that means is one weed is wiped out but another one takes it's place since that competition is no longer there. You may say that it shouldn't be an issue if Roundup actually kills everything. Guess what? It never has killed everything. There are some plants with shiny/waxy leaves that Roundup has always had trouble controlling. I get the feeling that you assume that all of a sudden this has become a problem when it has really been an issue for many years.

 

[nitsuj]

Monsanto makes great products that help people and make money. It is ridiculous to call them evil.

They sure do!

I would also guess their net "winnings" from litigation is a very small component of their net income.

In other words their business model isn't to entrap farmers into patent infringement, that'd be [STRIKE]evil[/STRIKE] a poor practice & self defeating.

 

[edward]

If you have been paying attention to all of this as long as I and others I know have then you would have asked this question about where it will end 30 years ago or more. Weeds have been developing resistance to herbicide since herbicides first came out. Most of us knew when Roundup ready crops became available that they were not the magic silver bullet. However, it was the best system most farmers had ever seen concerning weed control. Roundup is still quite effective on most weeds and will continue to be sprayed as long as it is effective. Then there is the issue of species shift. What that means is one weed is wiped out but another one takes it's place since that competition is no longer there. You may say that it shouldn't be an issue if Roundup actually kills everything. Guess what? It never has killed everything. There are some plants with shiny/waxy leaves that Roundup has always had trouble controlling. I get the feeling that you assume that all of a sudden this has become a problem when it has really been an issue for many years.

Well isn't that wonderful that you knew weed and insect resistance was going to happen 30 years ago. Did you share that with anyone?? Apparently Monsanto didn't.

Edit.

"Farmers do not think resistance is a problem until they actually have it," Johnson said. "And they think the chemical companies can turn on the spigots and produce a new herbicide whenever they want. The problem is, since Roundup is so effective, there's not been any money for new herbicide discovery."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414153529.htm



What does it matter when I realized that the problem was emerging, let alone what does it have to do with this discussion? The fact that weeds and insects have become resistant to current methods of control is the necessary reason for the change to new GMO crops and herbicides.

How long will it be until there will have to be another change? Then another? That was my point and you totally misconstrued it. You can think 30 years back but you can't seem to think 30 years forward.

Farmers, plant geneticists, chemists, and agronomists recently have been engaged in an arms race against weeds, particularly weeds that have evolved resistance to the common herbicide glyphosate. A second generation of herbicide-tolerant crops has been developed to battle resistant weeds, but they have sparked concerns about overreliance on chemical controls.

Introduced in the 1980s, glyphosate has been the best-selling herbicide since 2001. Monsanto, which markets glyphosate as Roundup, introduced crops engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate in the late 1990s, and farmers now plant Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant corn, soybeans, and cotton on the majority of cultivated acres in the U.S. Thanks to the popularity of the firm’s Roundup Ready trait, last year 94% of soybean acres were herbicide-tolerant, as was 73% of cotton acreage and 72% of corn acreage, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Farmers liked glyphosate because it vastly simplified weed control. But it also led to the emergence of resistant weeds that are increasingly hard to kill.

For their part, Dow and Monsanto insist that the lessons learned from overreliance on glyphosate are changing farming practices. Never again, they say, will it be the norm to use the same herbicide, year after year, on the same crop in the same location. They dispute estimates that the use of 2,4-D or dicamba will greatly increase. And both firms have developed new, low-drift formulations of these herbicides that they say will minimize off-field migration.

Never again, they say, will it be the norm to use the same herbicide, year after year, on the same crop in the same location. Yet that is exactly what they are doing all over again.


For those interested in the problems with weed and insect resistance to current chemicals and GMO crops there is a video in the link below.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i21/War-Weeds.html

I suppose will now receive a warning for going off topic.

 

[Averagesupernova]

edward, why are you thinking I cannot/will not think 30 years forward? Can YOU tell me what will be happening in ag in 30 years? I seriously doubt it. Anyone actively engaged in farming knew about resistance to herbicide long before Monsanto came out with Roundup ready. It didn't take me to tell anyone. From my knowledge in the industry I would say that agronomists have been recommending additional tank mixes for the last 8 years or so to combat resistance to glyphosate. Diacamba and 2,4-D have been used on corn for many years and still have relatively good kill. So, worst case, farmers would go back to weed control with those chemicals like they did pre-Roundup.
-
Now, I realize this thread is about soybeans, so I will try to stay on topic. Know what weed control consisted of in soybeans pre-roundup? There were chemicals that worked well to kill grass in soybeans, but that's about it. No good broadleaf control post-emergence existed. The first method was to walk the beans and pull the weeds. Next came walking with a back-pack sprayer with a VERY high rate of Roundup to spot spray weeds. Next came specialized rigs that people rode on to spot spray weeds. They varied in size from holding probably 3 to 6 people. Not sure of how much area each person could cover width-wise. I am guessing 6 to 12 feet of width per person. Walking soybean fields was not uncommon in the late 1980s. Of course, farms have gotten a lot larger since then and you can credit that partly to Roundup whether you consider it a good thing or a bad thing.
-
What exactly do you want from me? I'm telling you how history has unfolded and how things work and you come with:

Well isn't that wonderful that you knew weed and insect resistance was going to happen 30 years ago. Did you share that with anyone??

Maybe it will satisfy you to know this: If everything went organic, many many many people would have to go back out onto the farm. You cannot abandon the technology that has evolved and expect to continue doing the same things in ag that you are doing the day before you abandon the technology. So are you interested in going back to the farm? Someone will have to do it. We cannot do it organically with the number of people we have on farms now.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well isn't that wonderful that you knew weed and insect resistance was going to happen 30 years ago. Did you share that with anyone??

Er, isn't that common knowledge?

 

[edward]

Er, isn't that common knowledge?

Apparently not to farmers They trusted the people who did know.

"Farmers do not think resistance is a problem until they actually have it," Johnson said. "And they think the chemical companies can turn on the spigots and produce a new herbicide whenever they want. The problem is, since Roundup is so effective, there's not been any money for new herbicide discovery."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414153529.htm

 

[edward]

Back to the topic. Two Points the Supreme Court will have to consider.

The Supreme Court recently requested the views of the Solicitor General on whether to grant review in Bowman v. Monsanto, a case relating to transgenic corn. Such requests are considered to be an indicator that the Supreme Court is likely to hear the case, and will do so if the Solicitor General agrees that there is an important issue for the Court to decide. The debate has been framed with a narrow first question limited to seed technology: whether a sale of patented seeds exhausts the patent rights in those seeds.


A second question before the Supreme Court, however, cuts more broadly: whether patent rights are subject to normal rules for exhaustion when the technology is self-replicating. In other words, the question is whether patent rights end once a plant, organism, or other biotechnology invention is sold, even though the technology may be expressed in subsequent generations of the patented article. If the Court answers “yes,” it would have a huge impact on the ability to protect certain types of biotechnology inventions.

As far as I can tell neither question has come before the Supreme Court of there would have been a precedent.

Mr Bowman is a 74 year old farmer and the total amount of the law suit is just under $85,000

Mr Bowman did candidly notify Monsanto that he was planting a second crop of commodity seeds.

In 1999, Bowman bought commodity seeds from a grain elevator and planted them for a second crop that season, discovering many had the Roundup resistance. So he followed the same practice in following years and told Monsanto representatives what he was doing.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20121012/EDIT07/310129998/1021/EDIT

Why did Monsanto wait so long to file the law suit?? If Monsanto wins, all future GMO patent infringement cases are a slam dunk

Now I have a gut feeling that this is a test case to insure that Monsanto and the GMO industry will have no future cases even go to court.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Mr Bowman did candidly notify Monsanto that he was planting a second crop of commodity seeds.

Did he notify them whether or not he will be spraying with Roundup thus fully utilizing the GMO traits in the crop or will he take care of weed control using pre-Roundup methods?

 

[edward]

Did he notify them whether or not he will be spraying with Roundup thus fully utilizing the GMO traits in the crop or will he take care of weed control using pre-Roundup methods?

Yes he did use roundup and he did tell Mosanto reps. Not only that he planted subsequent second crops using seed he saved from the original crop grown with commodity seed.


http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20121012/EDIT07/310129998/1021/EDIT

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'd say he is going down.

 

[edward]

I'd say he is going down.

It looks like it. The weird thing is that he has probably spent more to defend himself than he would have had to pay Monsanto.