In article >, "Jean B." > 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?

They have the money and clout, but more specifically this is a new area of law
and the trespassed farmer may not be getting advice from lawyers that feel
capable of pursuing the issue or they may advise that the judge would rule
against the trespassed.

It's hard to say the real reason, but one should always keep in mind that for
most legal matters, the law works both ways