1. Since the court ruling, the farmers are not liable for cross-pollinated crops unless they themselves bought the patented seeds in the first place. Any cross-pollination from natural means (ie: wind) they are not held liable for.
2. If they self-destruct after being naturally deposited (so the farmer isn't liable and can sell the crop), so what. They got an increased yield at a decreased price. win-win.
3. I said "more often than not" it is unintentional. Key phrase there. Monsanto is one of the few exceptions to the standard (for the most part).
1. I've looked into that court case numerous times and never found anything regarding cross-pollination. What I've gathered from the case was that one cannot re-sell Monsanto's seeds without paying royalties. The farmer in question bought his seeds from a local grain elevator due to the lowered price, and wasn't informed as to where the seed had come from. Eight generations later, Monsanto took him to court for not paying royalties and the supreme court ruled against the farmer. It was a patent dispute that attempted broad application and actually worked, which is quite scary. The ruling basically implies that if I were to purchase Flavor West flavors, for example, and re-bottle and sell them as my own (like MBV's DIY section), I could get sued under patent protection pretenses.
Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in major patent case
2. Well same as number one. I didn't read anything regarding the cross-pollination instances, so you'll have to link me up.
3. Actually, Monsanto is the wealthiest and largest seed and trait and agrochemical corporation on the planet with 27% of the world's seed market share and 10% of the world's agrochemical share, with 2nd place (DuPont) coming in at 17% of the seed market share. Their lawsuits targeting smaller farmers for rather large sums of money combined with their patent on the "terminator gene" are not unintentional by any stretch of the imagination, and their seed-and-trait style of business falls under the 'always' category. I suppose *if* the rest of the biotech industry had been putting fourth naturally replicating, un-patented seeds than perhaps your focus on the frequency at which these events occur might have some merit (especially if Monsanto wasn't at the top of the food chain) but its just not the case. Most biotech industries patent their genetic material and after that ruling and are probably jumping with joy at their newfound legal jurisdiction regarding lawsuit linguistics.
Why Is Monsanto the Most Hated Company in the World? - DailyFinance
Theres a link to the statistics provided. It actually does a great job explaining what's wrong with Monsanto from a statistical point of view while simultaneously exemplifying the difficulty in placing the blame on GMO's for rather extreme things like cancer etc. Worth mentioning -
[Regarding crop yield in recent generations]"GMO crops had nothing to do with it -- old-fashioned hybridization, improved production techniques and infrastructures, and the spread of these two important developments around the world created a modern agricultural revolution after the Second World War."
"GMOs can't claim to have reduced crop costs
through efficiency gains, either. Since commercial introduction in 1996, two of the
three major crops planted have nearly doubled in price."
"The prevalence of food allergies among children increased by 18% from 1997 to 2007. That's rather notable. The average number of food-allergy-related hospital visits per year also spiked toward the end of the tracking period, from only 2,600 per year in 2000 to more than 9,500 in 2006."
1. We weren't talking cross-pollination, which could actually wind up removing the self-destruct part of the product. We were talking about re-planting abilities. And for all their expertise in the field, it is still a VERY COMPLEX and ADVANCED field, hence all the money spent there. They spend billions trying to increase yields by barely a percentage point, yet you think it is a simple as snapping your fingers to prevent cross-pollination? Seems to me you are the one assuming they are absolute geniuses.
2. Small farmers, actually farmers, rarely do the scientific research behind the modifications, so I don't know why you brought them into this. However my point was that most of the field (which while Monsanto is the biggest, they don't even make up 5% of the R&D), don't operate like Monsanto usually does. They are the ones that are really trying to get rid of the self-destruct aspect (that is usually an unintended side-effect) of their modifications.
3. As for the labeling of GMOs. Why don't you look who is pushing that behind the scenes. The GMO-industry doesn't really care because people are going to buy them anyways for cost and nutrition reasons. Whereas Big Organic (which usually isn't actually truly organic) is a huge contributor to pushing for labeling solely so they can score extra sales via fearmongering.
1. I'm not quite sure which direction you're heading in anymore. The root of your response lies in your initial sentence -
Many are trying to find a way around this while keeping the benefits of the modifications.
To retract my earlier point on the subject of cross pollination, I can understand (while remaining unconvinced) if they didn't foresee their cross pollination issues, just as they couldn't foresee the strains of super weeds they would create. Statistically, it seems that what is hurting farmers economically seems to be the re-planting issue, which is what you say you are referring to.
So to tie in your initial point of 'trying to find a way around this' to your current point revolving around re-planting seeds, are you trying to say that Monsanto and other biotech corporations are trying to find a way around the economic noose that they tied themselves? I can't buy that. If you were referring to the farmers themselves, well obviously they would be trying to find a way around this monopoly but it just ain't happening, especially after that court ruling.
2. I brought the farmers into this because this is one of the reasons Monsanto has been protested by more than 2 million world-wide, topping all of the Occupy events combined. They're in bad shape due to Monsanto's model of business and grab-... relationship with the courts/governments. I was also simply trying to clarify one of the muddied points you seemed you wanted to make. Give me a link to the 5% statistic you put fourth, as it seems like nonsense to say that the company which by and large owns and sells the majority of the world's biotech agricultural industrial goods is only responsible for 5% of the research and development therein. Who are 'the ones' trying to get rid of the self-destruct gene? Monsanto or the other biotech corporations? Either way, it's not true, as it's been patented, and again, the power of these patents has increased dramatically with that court ruling.
3. You're just flat out wrong again. Prop 37 in California attempted at labeling GMO laced food and was defeated thanks to the incredibly wealthy "Vote No" campaign, headed by Monsanto, who contributed over 8 million dollars. Meanwhile, every company in California on the organic side combined only totaled in at 9 million dollars. Lol @ 'big organic'. I beg you sir, as I seem to have to do for every single piece of 'information' you try to feed me, link me. How big is big organic? What companies are the major backers? What was their profit margin for the 2012 fiscal year? What dirty tricks (see second link below) does this evil 'big organic' undergo in order to force feed us worm-laden apples and tomatoes?
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-california-37-measure-182/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/prop-37-defeated_b_2087782.html
1. I did a search, seems the graph came from Scientific America, but I've seen it around. Also, you can look up the actual suicide numbers yourself and see it follows the graph.
2. I agree that the ability to re-plant seeds is a staple. However the court case had NOTHING TO DO WITH FARMS outside it was a farmer in the case. It had to do with patent law. Hell Monsanto (and the rest of the GMO industry) weren't even the main funders of lobbying in support of their own case!
1. I'd prefer you link me yourself than make me do research on a point you've made which I've already disproved with research of my own. You've made alot of claims throughout your rants, and have provided me with absolutely zero evidence in any form whatsoever. Meanwhile, I've done my best to attach citations to every key point I make, so as to be sure not to inject this conversation with subjective 'soap box' talk.
2. Of course Monsanto was the main lobbying force behind their case. They hired the attorneys and had to appear in court themselves silly. These two points seemed rather weak tbh, as you didn't even attempt to read or provide counter-evidence for the article I provided.
He has spoken directly to people like you who seem to hate GMOs, saying they are needed and are necessary and are good. He can be compared to the modern GMO industry. He is the reason for it. I do understand the modern day genetic practices, and I'm not on your side. It just reinforces my stance, and make people like you seem even more uninformed and misguided.
It seems to me you use Monsanto as the basis to your hatred. Smart move given they are the black sheep in the field. The loudest mouth, the most money, the most non-ethical and non-moral in the field, spend the most in the field, yet make up but a small fraction of the field. You condemn an entire field, practice, industry, based on a couple of actions by one in the field. Are all Christians like the WBC? Are all Muslims like Al-Qaeda? All baseball players like A-Rod? All women like Marisa Tomei? All men like Brad Pitt? NO. Attack Monsanto all you want, I'm on your side there. However, not supporting GMOs (especially in agriculture), well not only do I believe that is stupidity, but I believe it is a recipe for a heart-wrenching, painful, torturous form of population control.
Link me to the speech where he said we should support GMO's and I'll provide my thoughts on the matter. As I said, I'm well aware of his practices and I highly praise them. As cited earlier, old-fashioned hybridization and improved production techniques and infrastructures, including his 'maintain the mother' approach to phenogenetics were the driving forces behind yield increase in the post-war era, and I'm totally cool with that. I would like to believe that if you were more well-informed and open-minded you would indeed be on my side. I'm a huge advocate of scientific advancement, but I'm also keenly aware that science is merely a tool, and is only as useful or destructive as the man, corporation, or government holding that tool.
Yes, Monsanto is the basis of my distaste. I never said I'm against increasing crop yield. To clarify, you have to clear the air on what you believe GMO to mean or imply. Borlaug's didn't produce what I would consider GMOs, as he wasn't working with the act of splicing, nor was he remotely as precise as today's field. He was doing rather rudimentary work that (I'll repeat) produced no negative impact on the crops, the individuals eating them, the farmers who produce and sell them, or the neighboring biosphere.
Monsanto is the largest player in the game with the most money to throw around and by far the most global impact. Whether the negative side effects spewing out of their practices left and right were intended or not, they deserve to be sued, shut down, and their executives put in prison. They're the head of the game, though, and competing companies are adopting their practices. BASF, for example, was protested after attempting to release GM potatoes in the UK.
Protest against GM potato application by BASF
DuPont attempted releasing male-sterilized rice seed into India on a rather large scale.
Indian Farmers of Bangalore protest Dupont's open-field GMO rice trials | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Hell, Dow was being protested back in '67 for developing napalm in conjunction with the US Air Force.
Projects: Cold War Guide: 1967 Protest and Sit-In against DOW Chemical
I'll repeat, science is a wonderful tool, but it's merely a tool that represents it's user. In today's world, it is all too often used in the name of profit rather than the betterment of mankind. Vertical translucent greenhouses, hydroponics, sustainable biospheric work, etc., are all inspiring uses of technology and the scientific approach to problem solving. Blindly attaching yourself to a single practice and defending it sans any sort of scientific approach seems like a fool's approach, and that applies to anything in life honestly.
but I do vape 100 percent VG or 10/90 PG/VG and have learned not to skimp on juice as it invariably leads to dissatisfaction. 
