Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> 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

Thanks for the illumination.

--
Jean B.