caseydog wrote:mk10108 wrote:caseydog wrote:asianflava wrote:I watched it last night, eh there was nothing that was really big news.
As a matter of fact there was even a CSI episode where a farmer was sued by a seed company because pollen had blown in from neighboring farms.
That stuff about Monsanto suing corn farmers over seed corn that was pollinated by the wind from Monsanto farms is pure BULLS--T!!! Buy our seed or we'll sue you into bankruptcy. That's just wrong.
CD
Makes for good TV but the facts are quite different.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0153.html
We know you make your living working for Food, Inc, so this thread has got to be seen as a threat to you. We get it.
Okay, you want to post links to the "facts?" Fine, let's post links. Here's a couple of mine...
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.phphttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... st_FarmersCD
The purpose of my link was to show how difficult cross pollination is. Not quite sure about the "feel threaten" comment is about. I work for a packaging equipment company, not a food company. I did review your links and found the story interesting. I believe Percy is playing both sides of the fence and here are my reasons for thinking so.
Percy stated that he wanted nothing to do with Monsanto GM offerings and that he worked for 50 years developing his own cross pollinating and used a percentage of seed for replanting. This was normal farm practice many years ago and, in some areas, still in use today. I assume he was well aware (as all farmers are) how cross pollination works and saw an opportunity. Perhaps Percy can play the game better than his neighbors.
Hybrid crops are not the evil they're made out to be. Hybridization provides yields up to 6-10 times greater than non hybrid crops. This increased is what farmers want because it produces more product per acre. Volume wins in the commodity game.
So Percy plants next to his neighbor crop (stated no fence between him or his neighbor land) and knows it will be cross pollinated. He saves those rows as seed for the following year, mixes the GM seed with his, and produces a better yield than the previous year. But he's smarter than the average farmer, doesn't get greedy and by selectively mixing the seed to produce between 0 - 68% of GM across 8 fields. Now he has the benefits of a GM product at no cost.
Monsanto makes Hybrid seeds for the multiple revenue streams it provides. Higher yield uniform crop for mechanical farming and the chemical side to control weeds. These guys get the gold medal for Agricultural Capitalism. They also produce Hybrid to GET capitalization (selling stock). By showing investors (you and I) a return capital because they enforce the no seed rule of the contract. If every farmer kept 10 percent of his crop for seed the following year Monsanto cash flow and profitability would be 10 percent less. Who would invest in a business that guaranteed a loss? So if a farmer wants this high performance seed, one signs a detail contract stating NO seed saving and authorizes their agents to inspect their crops and allow sampling. Sign the line and live by the contract....which Percy did not sign nor had to comply with.
Stated in this link
http://percyschmeiser.com/
"In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB. Schmeiser's defense also contained evidence that he didn't knowingly acquire Monsanto's product, segregate the contaminated seeds for future use or spray his canola with Roundup".....I find the statement "he didn't knowing acquire Monsanto's product" a stretch. He cross pollinated for 50 years.
Although Percy stated he purchased chemical from Monsanto, it wasn't Roundup (engineered to work with Hybrid crops) and this was his "get out of jail" card. If he purchased Roundup it would show that he knew GM products were growing on his property and wanted to maximize his profit. But this also shows Percy is smarter than the average bear. If he did not pay for seed and overall yield was less in some fields than others, why would he purchase Roundup to incriminate himself. Lose a little to weeds but live with moderate gains thanks to a Corporations intellectual property rights.
Monsanto is the bully because their agents trespassed on and collected his, private property without permission. And may have falsified information about how much his crop was their GM seed.
Farmers want high performance seed, trouble is Monsanto is the one making better seed (better than Percy). No farmers seed CO OP exist, because what investor would risk capital without the contract similar to Monsanto's.
Two issues to think about.
One is should Monsanto have patents on engineered seed. I would say yes. They produce a product with higher yields and that adds value. Making chemicals (Roundup) does not harm the crop while only killing weeds, is also a benefit. At issue is not cross pollination but using cross pollination corn as seed for the following year. That is Monsanto's intellectual property. Does a farmer have a right to position his crop so cross pollination can occur and steal intellectual property? I would say no.
The bigger issue to ponder, is Monsanto becoming a Monopoly. I do not know what percentage Monsanto has of the corn seed market and how it operates in the marketplace, however this article is interesting, NY times-March 11 of this year. Obama just might be a farmers friend. Also noteworthy is Monsanto's patent on GM corn runs out just before planting season 2014. So Big M is pushing a gen 2 roundup now. The farmers fear is lower yields with generic seed but Monsanto is not worried. How many people purchase Tylenol at a higher price than a generic? Lots of folks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/busin ... gewanted=1
by caseydog » Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:57 pm 
