The Useful Duck!

Contribute to my Vacation, please...

Friday, March 8, 2013

I heart Monsanto!

Looks like Monsanto have hired a PR firm!
(Click Here)
I like it! It is the modern farmer way! Screw me hard and tell me it is for my own good!
Of course you can't really blame Monsanto as they just do what they do because they are a huge bureaucracy and want to absorb the world.
The folks that run this country and don't understand their own laws, like anti-trust, monopoly, or basic concepts like general biology.
If I raise sweet corn and my cannery says I can't have the corn closer than 1/2 mile or three weeks from GMO corn, why should I not be able to sue for Pollen drift? You can sue for dust pollution, smoke, loud music, and plumber's butt, and hot coffee at McDonalds.
I'm saying this while at the same time I think herbicide resistant corn and alfalfa are wonderful when you need them.
I object to the purchase of every single independent seed company, the rabid attacks on anyone suspected of saving seed, and their refusal to admit their GMO pollen drift is pollution to a farmer whose market is NonGMO!
Yeah, nominate farm Mom of the year!
Pay for it with the money you extorted from her husband over an allegation he saved soybeans from last year!
However, advertising has proved that polishing a turd will make people think it is a steak so I guess we get what we deserve.


  1. I'm sure if anyone would know which is the clean end, it would be Monsanto.

    1. They have that trait genetically engineered and a patent on it.

  2. Well good P.R. is worth a lot and Monsanto has a lot of (our) money. As usual we farmers are just pawns in the big chess game of life. Until we get tired of playing, or swept off the board.

  3. I'm not a religious man but if I was I'd know that Monsanto is the devil. I've watch some truly shocking video about their treatment of farmers.

    1. They are purposely creating a monopoly. They are then gouging us for the seed and they sue farmers whose fields have been contaminated by their pollen drift.
      The problem is that no one will enforce the anti monopoly laws. There is no longer any competition in the seed business.

  4. You know a couple weeks ago I was wondering where you stood on Bowman v. Monsanto but I think you've pretty much answered my question.

    1. Gordon, I am not sure I did answer your question.
      I think that if a company develops a seed variety they should have a degree of control over that variety.
      The way I understood it was that the question is how far that control extends.
      There are several issues.
      Farmers have traditionally saved their seed, but Bowman didn't exactly do that. He bought seed on the open market and planted it. This was one step or so removed from the technology contract you sign with Monsanto.
      With the understanding that it is an established tradition to buy generic seed to plant. and especially if you don't care about specific traits, meaning you as a farmer take a certain risk when buying that seed, then where should the patent rights end?
      There are a couple upsetting issues.
      1. That Monsanto has the goal of becoming a Monopoly and that is one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to prevent.
      2. Monsanto has essentially purposely contaminated the grain supply with GMO and so it is impossible to buy open market grain without getting GMO and so it would be impossible to plant generic or feed grain without violating the licensing agreement. Should they have been able to do that? Why should they be rewarded for manipulating the system?
      Not everyone thinks the Monsanto gene is an advantage. Why should we have to pay for it if we don't want it?
      However, it appears that Bowman bought the generic seeds and the applied the Monsanto chemical and harvest the beans that remained. So he intended to use the Monsanto system. That is why I have mixed feelings about the case.
      I personally think the patent rights should only cover new seed. Buying pig feed, planting it, spraying it with the Monsanto chemical is not the way to get a really good crop. Lots of risk. It is not the same as buying a bag of certified seed.

    2. A government-issued patent grants you a monopoly, as well the right to sue people who won't pay you royalties on your claimed invention.

      But the monopoly is only for 20 years, after which the invention goes into the public domain.

      You can already buy generic roundup. In some number of years you will be able to buy generic roundup ready seeds. Monsanto's stock price peaked in 2008.

      Monsanto rubbed a lot of farmers the wrong way by requiring technology agreements rather than just relying on its patent rights. Lawyers can be nervous as well as grasping.

      Bowman very cleverly found a way to get his roundup ready soybean seed without violating the agreement. But that doesn't necessarily get him around the patent claim.

      Still what Bownman has done isn't immoral, even if he loses. We need people willing to test the limits of patent claims, just as we need inventors.

      The grasping lawyers could figure out a way to sue Monsanto for GMO pollution. If you don't want it in your grain, it's kind of like an unwanted computer virus.

    3. I would have thought the technology agreement Bowman signed when he official planted monsanto beans would have covered the generic beans if he purposely sprayed them to take advantage of the Monsanto technology.
      I would have thought that if you or I would have planted generic beans then we could do whatever we wanted because we have not signed the technolgy agreement.
      So, I don't really think that issue is being addressed by the court and might be an important issue.


Please leave a comment even if you are bored or don't agree with me...

Please leave comments! It is really easy!

You just type your comment in the text box below the post. You can be anyone you want.
And...Would the joker who keeps clicking "offensive" please leave an explanation ?!