Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article >, "Jean B." >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
>>>>>> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
>>>>>> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
>>>>>> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
>>>>>> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
>>>>>> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
>>>>>> crowd.
>>>>> It's the organic thing over again. Organic products are more expensive.
>>>>> Some who want them are willing to pay more. To the extent that GMO
>>>>> products cost less the price difference will matter. I don't know if
>>>>> the productivity of GMO crops is high enough to make often price
>>>>> difference to matter. Eventually they will be for the same reason the
>>>>> "green revolution" happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
>>>>> companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
>>>>> year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.
>>>> How about suing farmers when the GMO material drifts into their
>>>> fields?
>>> under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable
>> Wouldn't it be the farmers whose fields GMO products have strayed
>> into who could sue then?
>
> yes

So why does Monsanto end up suing them instead?

--
Jean B.