Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Hi Dawie Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism might be another way of saying that, or maybe an example of it, one way the mechanism works. Best Keith Hi Tom My point is that we'd be very foolish to take corporate statements as face-value reflections of corporations' aims and desires: corporate statements very often reflect the precise opposite of their aims and desires. Corporations aren't human, they have no human need to express themselves. If they make statements it is not from some understandable inner impulse to get something off their chest. If not for definite strategic purposes they would make no statements at all. So, when there is an Issue and we find a corporation saying, whatever you do, don't do X, in a situation where people are up in arms and ready to defenestrate the board of directors and government officials are eager to take up the people's cause, is it not safe to assume that at the very least the corporation has no real fear of X? Chances are it was the corporation who introduced X into the debate, though nobody remembers that; and that X is what the corporation has been after all along. But when people take whatever you do, don't do X to be a bona-fide expression of (human) fear, they feel that they are fighting the good fight when they do precisely X, forcing the corporation to do what it obviously doesn't want to do, and thus achieving a dear-bought victory: only they don't know the half of how dear-bought. The victories pile up, the war is within sight of its end, the corporate monster is tamed. It cowers demurely, but for some reason the problem it has caused just keeps getting bigger. Best regards Dawie Coetzee - Original Message From: Tom Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, 30 September, 2008 19:30:34 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits Thanx Dawi, Can you explain what you mean by Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions.? Tom Epp On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Dawie Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The role of the villain can work for corporations as well as against them. If they can be sure they will ALWAYS be regarded as the villain they can predict the reaction to their actions with a lot of confidence. I believe this is of central strategic importance to them when it comes to manipulating government. It ought to be clear by now that large corporations thrive in a highly-regulated environment. That environment is most certain when it has popular support, which is best achieved by the illusion that measures are about limiting corporate abuse when they are in fact about maintaining corporate privilege. Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions. -Dawie - Original Message From: Tom Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 19:49:42 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits Why do some companies (like Monsanto) have such disregard for their reputation? It's so clear that greed drives this corporation, what benefits can come from this? Walmart acts this way too, and I don't see the benefits? It's almost like one day they just stopped caring. I suspect it will be the downfall of these companies. Tom Epp On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of the farmers who own the land. Sources: Organic Consumers Association August 31, 2008 _ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm_ (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm) Dr
Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Thanx Dawi, Can you explain what you mean by Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions.? Tom Epp On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Dawie Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The role of the villain can work for corporations as well as against them. If they can be sure they will ALWAYS be regarded as the villain they can predict the reaction to their actions with a lot of confidence. I believe this is of central strategic importance to them when it comes to manipulating government. It ought to be clear by now that large corporations thrive in a highly-regulated environment. That environment is most certain when it has popular support, which is best achieved by the illusion that measures are about limiting corporate abuse when they are in fact about maintaining corporate privilege. Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions. -Dawie - Original Message From: Tom Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 19:49:42 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits Why do some companies (like Monsanto) have such disregard for their reputation? It's so clear that greed drives this corporation, what benefits can come from this? Walmart acts this way too, and I don't see the benefits? It's almost like one day they just stopped caring. I suspect it will be the downfall of these companies. Tom Epp On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of the farmers who own the land. Sources: Organic Consumers Association August 31, 2008 _ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm_ (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm) Dr. Mercola's Comments: Imagine being a farmer who is trying to grow organic, non-genetically modified crops. Then imagine those crops being contaminated by a neighbor's GM crops, whose seeds or pollen have blown over onto your land. Then imagine Monsanto coming in and trying to SUE you for violating the patent they've placed on those seeds! That is outrageous! Only a desperately evil company like Monsanto would have the unbridled greed to pull something like that. What is most shocking, though, is that Monsanto' s practice of targeting farmers for patent infringement is common, and well planned out. It is not only the farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds that are being investigated, but also farmers accused of saving Monsanto's patented seeds to use the next year. Never mind that this is the way farmers have operated for generations; saving seeds from one year to the next makes sense financially and environmentally. Of course Monsanto saw it as a cut in their profits, so they began to patent their seeds. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company. But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress. Farmers who buy Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seeds or sell them to other farmers (What if the farmer doesn't sign one? Not to worry, Monsanto has actually admitted to forging farmers' signatures on technology agreements if they didn't have one on file). The end result of the agreements? Farmers must buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto. Monsanto's
Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Hi Tom My point is that we'd be very foolish to take corporate statements as face-value reflections of corporations' aims and desires: corporate statements very often reflect the precise opposite of their aims and desires. Corporations aren't human, they have no human need to express themselves. If they make statements it is not from some understandable inner impulse to get something off their chest. If not for definite strategic purposes they would make no statements at all. So, when there is an Issue and we find a corporation saying, whatever you do, don't do X, in a situation where people are up in arms and ready to defenestrate the board of directors and government officials are eager to take up the people's cause, is it not safe to assume that at the very least the corporation has no real fear of X? Chances are it was the corporation who introduced X into the debate, though nobody remembers that; and that X is what the corporation has been after all along. But when people take whatever you do, don't do X to be a bona-fide expression of (human) fear, they feel that they are fighting the good fight when they do precisely X, forcing the corporation to do what it obviously doesn't want to do, and thus achieving a dear-bought victory: only they don't know the half of how dear-bought. The victories pile up, the war is within sight of its end, the corporate monster is tamed. It cowers demurely, but for some reason the problem it has caused just keeps getting bigger. Best regards Dawie Coetzee - Original Message From: Tom Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, 30 September, 2008 19:30:34 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits Thanx Dawi, Can you explain what you mean by Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions.? Tom Epp On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Dawie Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The role of the villain can work for corporations as well as against them. If they can be sure they will ALWAYS be regarded as the villain they can predict the reaction to their actions with a lot of confidence. I believe this is of central strategic importance to them when it comes to manipulating government. It ought to be clear by now that large corporations thrive in a highly-regulated environment. That environment is most certain when it has popular support, which is best achieved by the illusion that measures are about limiting corporate abuse when they are in fact about maintaining corporate privilege. Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions. -Dawie - Original Message From: Tom Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 19:49:42 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits Why do some companies (like Monsanto) have such disregard for their reputation? It's so clear that greed drives this corporation, what benefits can come from this? Walmart acts this way too, and I don't see the benefits? It's almost like one day they just stopped caring. I suspect it will be the downfall of these companies. Tom Epp On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of the farmers who own the land. Sources: Organic Consumers Association August 31, 2008 _ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm_ (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm) Dr. Mercola's Comments: Imagine being a farmer who is trying to grow organic, non-genetically modified crops. Then imagine those crops being contaminated by a neighbor's GM crops, whose seeds or pollen have
Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Why do some companies (like Monsanto) have such disregard for their reputation? It's so clear that greed drives this corporation, what benefits can come from this? Walmart acts this way too, and I don't see the benefits? It's almost like one day they just stopped caring. I suspect it will be the downfall of these companies. Tom Epp On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of the farmers who own the land. Sources: Organic Consumers Association August 31, 2008 _ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm_ (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm) Dr. Mercola's Comments: Imagine being a farmer who is trying to grow organic, non-genetically modified crops. Then imagine those crops being contaminated by a neighbor's GM crops, whose seeds or pollen have blown over onto your land. Then imagine Monsanto coming in and trying to SUE you for violating the patent they've placed on those seeds! That is outrageous! Only a desperately evil company like Monsanto would have the unbridled greed to pull something like that. What is most shocking, though, is that Monsanto' s practice of targeting farmers for patent infringement is common, and well planned out. It is not only the farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds that are being investigated, but also farmers accused of saving Monsanto's patented seeds to use the next year. Never mind that this is the way farmers have operated for generations; saving seeds from one year to the next makes sense financially and environmentally. Of course Monsanto saw it as a cut in their profits, so they began to patent their seeds. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company. But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress. Farmers who buy Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seeds or sell them to other farmers (What if the farmer doesn't sign one? Not to worry, Monsanto has actually admitted to forging farmers' signatures on technology agreements if they didn't have one on file). The end result of the agreements? Farmers must buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto. Monsanto's Seed Police How would Monsanto know if farmers were reusing their seeds? They've hired an army of private investigators and agents to do just that. It's difficult to say exactly how extensive this army of seed police actually is today, but as of 2005 Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10 million budget solely to investigate and prosecute farmers for patent infringement. Let's just say, for argument's sake, you were inclined to agree with Monsanto about their right to monitor their seeds. They have, after all, invested millions of dollars into these (typically toxic) genetically modified seeds, and they need to recover some of that money. Well, can anyone rationally say that a farmer is responsible for patent infringement if a seed blows onto his property? Of course not. And this is where the bill AB 541 will protect California's farmers from this type of harassment. I don't believe for one second, though, that Monsanto has any justification in any of these matters. They are slowly working to take control of the entire food supply, and this is not an exaggeration. Monsanto is considering using what's known as terminator technology on a wide-scale basis. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to self-destruct. In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again
Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Hello Tom, welcome Why do some companies (like Monsanto) have such disregard for their reputation? Oh, I don't think they do. They do tend to have more message management problems than some (but not others), but they manage it quite well, or rather quite effectively. From a previous message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia The fake persuaders Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet There's more about it in the archives. This is just the tip of the iceberg with this kind of disinfo campaign. It even has a name - viral marketing they call it: An article on its [Bivings] website, entitled Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World [by Andrew Dimock, head of Bivings' online marketing and promotions division], warns that 'there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first listen to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously.' On the other hand, if their claims that only biotech can feed a starving world and so on carry any weight at all (they don't), if their product can stand on its own merits in the marketplace, then why would they need to stoop to such totally slimy and ethics-free tactics as those of the Bivings Group, just for starters? It's so clear that greed drives this corporation, what benefits can come from this? Isn't it a legal requirement that corporations make the bottom-line their priority? Walmart acts this way too, and I don't see the benefits? No, other than for Walmart. Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers. (Tvo) It's almost like one day they just stopped caring. Caring? Why/how would a corporation care? They spend a lot of money persuading us all that they're persons and citizens and so on (corporations have more human rights than you do), but that's not how they're built to function. They care when it costs less than not caring. This is worth a read: http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg65027.html Re: [Biofuel] worth reading -an insight into politics and corporations - 4% of population is psychopathic Mon, 07 Aug 2006 Also: http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous5.html#creed Feel No Remorse -- The Corporate Creed I suspect it will be the downfall of these companies. But then they get bailed out eh? If they've been paying their dues. But I agree with you, it's just all too in-your-face these days, people are getting unmesmerised by the million, and I guess when enough of them get cross enough things will change, one way or another. It's already happening. See How to kill a mammoth, from Roberto Verzola, secretary-general of the Philippine Greens: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628.html [biofuel] Mammoth corporations More on the California legislation: http://www.calgefree.org/speakout.html Monsanto's intimidation tactics no longer legal Best Keith Tom Epp On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
The role of the villain can work for corporations as well as against them. If they can be sure they will ALWAYS be regarded as the villain they can predict the reaction to their actions with a lot of confidence. I believe this is of central strategic importance to them when it comes to manipulating government. It ought to be clear by now that large corporations thrive in a highly-regulated environment. That environment is most certain when it has popular support, which is best achieved by the illusion that measures are about limiting corporate abuse when they are in fact about maintaining corporate privilege. Corporations build nests for themselves thus, provoking the conditions they want by taking a calculatedly vociferous stance AGAINST those conditions. -Dawie - Original Message From: Tom Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 19:49:42 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits Why do some companies (like Monsanto) have such disregard for their reputation? It's so clear that greed drives this corporation, what benefits can come from this? Walmart acts this way too, and I don't see the benefits? It's almost like one day they just stopped caring. I suspect it will be the downfall of these companies. Tom Epp On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of the farmers who own the land. Sources: Organic Consumers Association August 31, 2008 _ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm_ (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm) Dr. Mercola's Comments: Imagine being a farmer who is trying to grow organic, non-genetically modified crops. Then imagine those crops being contaminated by a neighbor's GM crops, whose seeds or pollen have blown over onto your land. Then imagine Monsanto coming in and trying to SUE you for violating the patent they've placed on those seeds! That is outrageous! Only a desperately evil company like Monsanto would have the unbridled greed to pull something like that. What is most shocking, though, is that Monsanto' s practice of targeting farmers for patent infringement is common, and well planned out. It is not only the farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds that are being investigated, but also farmers accused of saving Monsanto's patented seeds to use the next year. Never mind that this is the way farmers have operated for generations; saving seeds from one year to the next makes sense financially and environmentally. Of course Monsanto saw it as a cut in their profits, so they began to patent their seeds. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company. But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress. Farmers who buy Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seeds or sell them to other farmers (What if the farmer doesn't sign one? Not to worry, Monsanto has actually admitted to forging farmers' signatures on technology agreements if they didn't have one on file). The end result of the agreements? Farmers must buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto. Monsanto's Seed Police How would Monsanto know if farmers were reusing their seeds? They've hired an army of private investigators and agents to do just that. It's difficult to say exactly how extensive this army of seed police actually is today, but as of 2005 Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10 million budget solely to investigate and prosecute farmers for patent
[Biofuel] Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Some Farmers Now Protected Against Monsanto Lawsuits _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-no w-protected-against-monsanto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl_ (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/27/some-farmers-now-protected-against-mons anto-lawsuits.aspx?source=nl) Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented genetically engineered (GE) seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, especially Monsanto. But a landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits has passed through both legislative houses. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of the farmers who own the land. Sources: Organic Consumers Association August 31, 2008 _http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm_ (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14436.cfm) Dr. Mercola's Comments: Imagine being a farmer who is trying to grow organic, non-genetically modified crops. Then imagine those crops being contaminated by a neighbor’s GM crops, whose seeds or pollen have blown over onto your land. Then imagine Monsanto coming in and trying to SUE you for violating the patent they’ve placed on those seeds! That is outrageous! Only a desperately evil company like Monsanto would have the unbridled greed to pull something like that. What is most shocking, though, is that Monsanto’ s practice of targeting farmers for patent infringement is common, and well planned out. It is not only the farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto’s GM seeds that are being investigated, but also farmers accused of saving Monsanto’s patented seeds to use the next year. Never mind that this is the way farmers have operated for generations; saving seeds from one year to the next makes sense financially and environmentally. Of course Monsanto saw it as a cut in their profits, so they began to patent their seeds. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company. But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress. Farmers who buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seeds or sell them to other farmers (What if the farmer doesn’t sign one? Not to worry, Monsanto has actually admitted to forging farmers’ signatures on technology agreements if they didn’t have one on file). The end result of the agreements? Farmers must buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto. Monsanto’s Seed Police How would Monsanto know if farmers were reusing their seeds? They’ve hired an army of private investigators and agents to do just that. It’s difficult to say exactly how extensive this army of “seed police” actually is today, but as of 2005 Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10 million budget solely to investigate and prosecute farmers for patent infringement. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, you were inclined to agree with Monsanto about their right to monitor their seeds. They have, after all, invested millions of dollars into these (typically toxic) genetically modified seeds, and they need to recover some of that money. Well, can anyone rationally say that a farmer is responsible for patent infringement if a seed blows onto his property? Of course not. And this is where the bill AB 541 will protect California’s farmers from this type of harassment. I don’t believe for one second, though, that Monsanto has any justification in any of these matters. They are slowly working to take control of the entire food supply, and this is not an exaggeration. Monsanto is considering using what’s known as terminator technology on a wide-scale basis. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “ self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year. This solves their problem of needing “seed police,” but they are obviously looking the other way when it comes to the implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to
