Monsanto will never get away with this – not for long, anyways. If
nothing else, not the karma from all the suicides of Indian farmers
who’ve been priced out of farming and the pain felt by others, their
hubris alone will bring them down.

Yes, Monsanto, there is a natural law that cannot be manipulated.




Should Monsanto, or any corporation, have rights to a self-replicating
natural product?

By George Kimbrell and Debbie Barker, LA Times, February 19, 2013

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-
court-seed-20130219,0,1947225.story


On Tuesday, attorneys for the largest agrochemical corporation in the
world, Monsanto, will present arguments before the Supreme Court
asserting the company’s rights to the generations of seeds that
naturally reproduce from its genetically modified strains. Bowman vs.
Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court’s interpretation of a
complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects
something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control
a product of life?

The journey of a 75-year-old Indiana farmer to the highest court in
the country began rather uneventfully. Vernon Hugh Bowman purchased an
undifferentiated mix of soybean seeds from a grain elevator, planted
the seeds and then saved seed from the resulting harvest to replant
another crop. Finding that Bowman’s crops were largely the progeny of
its genetically engineered proprietary soybean seed, Monsanto sued the
farmer for patent infringement.

The case is a remarkable reflection on recent fundamental changes in
farming. In the 200-plus years since the founding of this country, and
for millenniums before that, seeds have been part of the public domain
— available for farmers to exchange, save, modify through plant
breeding and replant. Through this process, farmers developed a
diverse array of plants that could thrive in various geographies,
soils, climates and ecosystems. But today this history of seeds is
seemingly forgotten in light of a patent system that, since the
mid-1980s, has allowed corporations to own products of life.

One of Monsanto’s arguments is that when farmers save seed from a crop
grown from patented seed and then use that seed for another crop, they
are illegally replicating, or “making,” Monsanto’s proprietary seeds
instead of legally “using” the seeds by planting them only one time
and purchasing more seeds for each subsequent planting.
This logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of
seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate.
Monsanto’s claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural
product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for
example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip,
they don’t go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential
consequences are much more threatening.

Although Monsanto and other agrochemical companies assert that they
need the current patent system to invent better seeds, the
counterargument is that splicing an already existing gene or other DNA
into a plant and thereby transferring a new trait to that plant is not
a novel invention. A soybean, for example, has more than 46,000 genes.
Properties of these genes are the product of centuries of plant
breeding and should not, many argue, become the product of a
corporation. Instead, these genes should remain in the public domain.

The seed industry also claims that if patents are made narrower in
scope, innovation, such as devising environmentally sustainable ways
to farm, would be stifled. However, evidence casts doubt on the
prevalent assumption that positive environmental impacts have resulted
from their seed technologies.
Take the example of the genetically engineered soybean in question.
Its innovative trait is that it is resistant to the herbicide Roundup,
whose primary ingredient is glyphosate. However, weeds are developing
a rapid resistance to glyphosate.

In January, Farm Industry News reported that the area of U.S. cropland
infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds expanded to 61.2 million
acres in 2012. These “super weeds” are gaining momentum, increasing
25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.

In response, farmers resort to more soil-eroding tillage operations to
combat the weeds, and they turn to more toxic chemicals. Based on data
from the USDA, as much as 26% more pesticides per acre were used on
genetically engineered crops than on conventional crops.

And what is the industry’s response? Monsanto is planning to seek
approval for dicamba-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. Dow
AgroSciences is seeking USDA approval of soybeans and corn resistant
to 2, 4-D, an active ingredient in Agent Orange. It is difficult to
understand how such innovation is enhancing the environment.

Finally, the agrochemical industry claims that its seed innovation has
provided farmers more choices. Yet the market concentration of 10
agrochemical companies owning about two-thirds of global commercial
seed for major crops has narrowed the choice of seeds for farmers and
resulted in higher seed prices. Over an 11-year period, the cost per
acre of planting soybeans has risen a dramatic 325%.

Our organizations interviewed hundreds of farmers across the nation
for a recent report, “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers.” They explained
that the high adoption rate of genetically engineered seed is largely
because the companies have stopped offering conventional seed. One way
to recoup the high investment that Monsanto and others say is spent on
genetic engineering is to ensure that farmers have few other
purchasing options.

When arguments from both sides have been presented, the Supreme Court
justices will have to thoroughly consider the many complexities of
patent law as it pertains to self-replicating organisms. But taking a
few steps back from the microscope and the lawbooks, they may find
that there is a discussion to be had about a much deeper question: the
appropriate role of ownership and control over the very elements of
life.

George Kimbrell is the senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety
and Debbie Barker is the program director of Save Our Seeds and the
international director of the Center for Food

On 2013-02-22 17:21:38 +0000, ImStillMags said:

> Monsanto will never get away with this €“ not for long, anyways. If
> nothing else, not the karma from all the suicides of Indian farmers
> whove been priced out of farming and the pain felt by others, their
> hubris alone will bring them down.

Karma and hubris seems to turn to mist when confronted with millions of
dollars in lobbying manipulation of government.

On 2013-02-22, ImStillMags > wrote:

> Should Monsanto, or any corporation, have rights to a self-replicating
> natural product?
>
> By George Kimbrell and Debbie Barker, LA Times, February 19, 2013
>
> latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-
> court-seed-20130219,0,1947225.story


You need to learn to post hot links. Either bracket very long
links with greater/lesser than brackets like this:

<long_links>

.......or use http://tinyurl.com/ to provide shortened links, like
this:

http://tinyurl.com/aeft4pq

The shortened URL above is the almost useless link you provided, which
to use in many newsgroup readers and/or browsers, requires the reader
to copy n' paste more than once to make it work. Not good newsgroup
etiquette. The brackets are one possible solution, the tiny URL is an
even better one. I provide this help, as I believe the posted article
you provide is quite important and I thank you for it.

nb

On Feb 22, 11:20*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2013-02-22, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > Should Monsanto, or any corporation, have rights to a self-replicating
> > natural product?
>
> > By George Kimbrell and Debbie Barker, LA Times, February 19, 2013
>
> > latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-
> > court-seed-20130219,0,1947225.story
>
> You need to learn to post hot links. *Either bracket very long
> links with greater/lesser than brackets like this:
>
> <long_links>
>
> ......or usehttp://tinyurl.com/to provide shortened links, like
> this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aeft4pq
>
> The shortened URL above is the almost useless link you provided, which
> to use in many newsgroup readers and/or browsers, requires the reader
> to copy n' paste more than once to make it work. *Not good newsgroup
> etiquette. *The brackets are one possible solution, the tiny URL is an
> even better one. *I provide this help, as I believe the posted article
> you provide is quite important and I thank you for it.
>
> nb

My apologies. You see, I'm one of those horrible people who don't
use newsrreaders I read and post to this group on the dreaded
Google Groups.
Google automatically shortens urls for the Google Groups so they work
fine. I guess I never think about all you guys who don't use Google.

Sorry, I really don't do it to **** you off. honest.

On 2013-02-22, ImStillMags > wrote:

> Sorry, I really don't do it to **** you off. honest.

No problem. Jes an FYI. I think it needed to be accessed easily by
all raders, as I believe this Monsanto issue is one of the most
important contemprorary crisis of our times, maybe even more important
that global warming and renewable energy. Simply put, Monsanto wants
to legally own the World's food supply. There is no moral
justification for such arrogance.

That Monsanto has been allowed to procede as far as they have is a
crime against nature, possibly irrevocable, and anyone even remotely
involved with allowing it to happen should be prosecuted for crimes
against nature and humanity.

nb

On Feb 22, 3:27*pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2013-02-22, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I really don't do it to **** you off. * honest.
>
> No problem. *Jes an FYI. *I think it needed to be accessed easily by
> all raders, as I believe this Monsanto issue is one of the most
> important contemprorary crisis of our times, maybe even more important
> that global warming and renewable energy. *Simply put, Monsanto wants
> to legally own the World's food supply. *There is no moral
> justification for such arrogance.
>
> That Monsanto has been allowed to procede as far as they have is a
> crime against nature, possibly irrevocable, and anyone even remotely
> involved with allowing it to happen should be prosecuted for crimes
> against nature and humanity.
>
> nb

Preach brother !!! You said it better than I could.

On 2013-02-23 00:24:13 +0000, ImStillMags quoted:

>> That Monsanto has been allowed to procede as far as they have is a
>> crime against nature, possibly irrevocable, and anyone even remotely
>> involved with allowing it to happen should be prosecuted for crimes
>> against nature and humanity.

Dream on! Keep the hope alive!

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2013022216444032689-xxx@yyyzzz...
> On 2013-02-23 00:24:13 +0000, ImStillMags quoted:
>
>>> That Monsanto has been allowed to procede as far as they have is a
>>> crime against nature, possibly irrevocable, and anyone even remotely
>>> involved with allowing it to happen should be prosecuted for crimes
>>> against nature and humanity.
>
> Dream on! Keep the hope alive!

Excellent excerpt. I agree totally, not much more to be said.

pavane

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
news:7bdba1cd-ebad-4e67-a410-

My apologies. You see, I'm one of those horrible people who don't
use newsrreaders I read and post to this group on the dreaded
Google Groups.
Google automatically shortens urls for the Google Groups so they work
fine. I guess I never think about all you guys who don't use Google.

Sorry, I really don't do it to **** you off. honest.
=========

It doesn't **** me off at all.

Cheri

In article <7bdba1cd-ebad-4e67-a410-01a84db8d091
@q9g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Feb 22, 11:20*am, notbob > wrote:
> > On 2013-02-22, ImStillMags > wrote:
> >
> > > Should Monsanto, or any corporation, have rights to a self-replicating
> > > natural product?
> >
> > > By George Kimbrell and Debbie Barker, LA Times, February 19, 2013
> >
> > > latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-
> > > court-seed-20130219,0,1947225.story
> >
> > You need to learn to post hot links. *Either bracket very long
> > links with greater/lesser than brackets like this:
> >
> > <long_links>
> >
> > ......or usehttp://tinyurl.com/to provide shortened links, like
> > this:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/aeft4pq
> >
> > The shortened URL above is the almost useless link you provided, which
> > to use in many newsgroup readers and/or browsers, requires the reader
> > to copy n' paste more than once to make it work. *Not good newsgroup
> > etiquette. *The brackets are one possible solution, the tiny URL is an
> > even better one. *I provide this help, as I believe the posted article
> > you provide is quite important and I thank you for it.
> >
> > nb
>
> My apologies. You see, I'm one of those horrible people who don't
> use newsrreaders

Take no notice, he's havering. My newsreader will open an url when I
click on it. No need to copy and paste. The only time it stumbles is if
the url is so long it gets line-wrapped, and that's the reason it's
polite usenet etiquette for posters offering a long url link, to give
the tinyurl as an alternative.

Janet UK

On 2013-02-23, Janet > wrote:

> the url is so long it gets line-wrapped, and that's the reason it's

Not everyone uses a gui based newsreader or GG or some half-assed
email reader. Mine IS a dedicated newsreader, some would say the
best. I also don't have 9 yr old eyeballs capable of reading a
cell phone screen at 50 paces. Ima geezer with old eyes and so use a
large font, so yes, her provided URL did, indeed, wrap and why I hadda
copy n' paste. I would suggest such is the case with many others in
this group. So no, she need no apologize and I didna ask her to. I
mearly suggested ways for her to post URLs to make it easier for
others to read her much appreciated contribution.

NOW, I'm havering!

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-02-23, Janet > wrote:
>
>> the url is so long it gets line-wrapped, and that's the reason it's
>
> Not everyone uses a gui based newsreader or GG or some half-assed
> email reader. Mine IS a dedicated newsreader, some would say the
> best. I also don't have 9 yr old eyeballs capable of reading a
> cell phone screen at 50 paces. Ima geezer with old eyes and so use a
> large font, so yes, her provided URL did, indeed, wrap and why I hadda
> copy n' paste. I would suggest such is the case with many others in
> this group. So no, she need no apologize and I didna ask her to. I
> mearly suggested ways for her to post URLs to make it easier for
> others to read her much appreciated contribution.
>
> NOW, I'm havering!



--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Feb 23, 6:44*am, notbob > wrote:
*So no, she need no apologize and I didna ask her to. *I
> mearly suggested ways for her to post URLs to make it easier for
> others to read her much appreciated contribution.




awwwwwwwwwwwww........ :-)

As far as evil and food crops..the liberal tree huggers who run our country are the grand prize winners. They are heavily subsidizing the ethanol industry which currently has an actual cost of 26 bucks per gallon and is consuming 40% of the nations entire corn crop. Surprisingly that drives up the price of meat..eggs..butter and the thousands of other products with are structured on the premise of reasonable priced corn. We are the only nation on earth stupid enough to burn up our food supply in the gas tanks of our cars. Too bad yall vote for those idiots.

I don't think tree huggers get a vote in the uber-conservative corn belt.
The price supports were pushed through congress in the early 2000s when the
Republicans had it all.

"bigwheel" > wrote in message
...
>
> As far as evil and food crops..the liberal tree huggers who run our
> country are the grand prize winners. They are heavily subsidizing the
> ethanol industry which currently has an actual cost of 26 bucks per
> gallon and is consuming 40% of the nations entire corn crop.
> Surprisingly that drives up the price of meat..eggs..butter and the
> thousands of other products with are structured on the premise of
> reasonable priced corn. We are the only nation on earth stupid enough to
> burn up our food supply in the gas tanks of our cars. Too bad yall vote
> for those idiots.
>

Good point!

`````````````````

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:02:39 -0600, "Keith" >
wrote:

> I don't think tree huggers get a vote in the uber-conservative corn belt.
> The price supports were pushed through congress in the early 2000s when the
> Republicans had it all.
>
> "bigwheel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As far as evil and food crops..the liberal tree huggers who run our
> > country are the grand prize winners. They are heavily subsidizing the
> > ethanol industry which currently has an actual cost of 26 bucks per
> > gallon and is consuming 40% of the nations entire corn crop.
> > Surprisingly that drives up the price of meat..eggs..butter and the
> > thousands of other products with are structured on the premise of
> > reasonable priced corn. We are the only nation on earth stupid enough to
> > burn up our food supply in the gas tanks of our cars. Too bad yall vote
> > for those idiots.
> >
>


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

ImStillMags wrote:
> On Feb 22, 3:27 pm, notbob > wrote:
>> On 2013-02-22, ImStillMags > wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I really don't do it to **** you off. honest.
>> No problem. Jes an FYI. I think it needed to be accessed easily by
>> all raders, as I believe this Monsanto issue is one of the most
>> important contemprorary crisis of our times, maybe even more important
>> that global warming and renewable energy. Simply put, Monsanto wants
>> to legally own the World's food supply. There is no moral
>> justification for such arrogance.
>>
>> That Monsanto has been allowed to procede as far as they have is a
>> crime against nature, possibly irrevocable, and anyone even remotely
>> involved with allowing it to happen should be prosecuted for crimes
>> against nature and humanity.
>>
>> nb
>
> Preach brother !!! You said it better than I could.
>
>
Hear, hear!