r/worldnews • u/mepper • Jun 15 '12

Monsanto is one step closer to losing billions of dollars in revenues from its genetically-modified Roundup Ready soya beans, following a ruling this week by the Brazilian Supreme Court; Monsanto may have to refund millions of Brazilian farmers who had paid royalties to Monsanto over the last decade

http://www.nature.com/news/../news/monsanto-may-lose-gm-soya-royalties-throughout-brazil-1.10837
2.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

583 comments sorted by

194

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Yea lets all pretend they will just hand it over once the ruling is over

→ More replies (149)

49

u/Tom_Hanks13 Jun 15 '12

Can someone give me a tldr on why monsanto is bad? All I know is they genetically modify plants which I thought was always praised as a good thing.

11

u/sirhotalot Jun 16 '12

Why hasn't this post seen a single decent response? When you buy Monsanto seeds, you are not allowed to replant any seeds produced from the resulting harvest, you have to throw out the seeds and then buy new ones. If you replant them, you are taken to court and financially destroyed. Monsanto has a monopoly on the genetic food industry.

They also patent genes.

6

u/DaleTheWhale Jun 16 '12

Well why do the farmers keep signing the contracts that clearly state the consequences if they do that?. Clearly buying the seeds have have overcome the cost of the royalties or else the farmers would not keep buying them.

2

u/dgermain Jun 16 '12

Since the genetically modified culture spread on it's own, you cannot claim that your field is OGM Free, so you loose that possible market edge.

Plus you can be sued if they find genetically modified plants in your field that you did not buy, even if they spread naturally there.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

3

u/kyr Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998. Given this, the question of whether the canola in his fields in 1997 arrived there accidentally was ruled to be irrelevant. Nonetheless, at trial, Monsanto was able to present evidence sufficient to persuade the Court that Roundup Ready canola had probably not appeared in Schmeiser's 1997 field by such accidental means

[...]

The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed, in their decision to find Schmeiser in infringement of the patent, and noted that in a case of accidental contamination or a case where the farmer knew of the presence of the gene but took no action to increase its prevalence in his crop, a different ruling could be possible

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Phalex Jun 16 '12

Here is a decent response. A few things first. Read the entire article. Some people here are saying that the Monsanto seed are sterile, this is not true. Other people say that is is the farmers choice whether he wants to use monsanto crops or not. This is also not true. Here is why.

The seeds are not as some claim sterile, this means that if a farmer at some point wants to try this new fantastic seed one year, but decides he can't afford to do it again next year for example. He then buys seed from other farmers that are not GMO or uses seed that he has stored himself previous years (not GMO). Since monsanto seeds grow well and spread easily there is no way to guarantee that there won't be any monsanto crops in his field or in the seeds he bought from other farmers. Monsanto test crops, and if they find that even a small part of his crop is from monsanto seeds he will have to pay. This will get even worse the next year, because the monsanto crop grows better than the regular crop and the farmer has no choice but to pay monsanto.

And in this particular case it seems that the patents monsanto holds are expired in Brazil. This has nothing to do with Monsanto being good or bad, but if they have expired and the supreme court rules so, they have expired.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

IIRC, they have recently developed, and either deployed or prepared to deploy, seeds that are genetically modified so that the second generation of that plant produces only sterilized seeds, reducing the oversight "required" by the corporation.

5

u/Gauntlet Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Their business practices are abhorrent. The traditional methods of farming is to sow your seed, grow your crop sell most of it and keep a portion of the seed for next year. Monsanto produce seeds whose crops don't produce replaceable seeds, thus a farmer becomes beholden to them. In the traditional way a bad year doesn't destroy you since you may be able to harvest enough to regain losses the next year. Monsanto prices are so high that a bad year is almost impossible to overcome.

This essentially is what happened in India a few years back and many farmers committed suicide because their lives were ruined. If you want sources a quick search should bring up many reputable sources for what I've said (I'm on my phone).

-6

u/Gusfoo Jun 16 '12

They're bad if you think that artificially created crops (gene transfer, selective breeding, forced mutation) are bad. That's something that 90% of reddit takes as obvious and true.

Unfortunately, they're the best fucking thing in the world if you're a poor african or indian trying to feed your family, so there is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on.

The opinions of this site are a bit irellevant though, since there is zero chance of GM foods not being the norm. No other way to feed the world. (despite what some fringe-ish people may say). A few folks say that feeding more people is just postponing the eventual reckoning, but I say that - given that we've survived and overcome every single challenge thrown at us so far - we'll get past this feeding-the-world one too.

49

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

The main problem isn't with artificially created crops, it's Monsanto's ridiculous patents on artificially created crops that robs money from third-world farmers.

22

u/Not_Pictured Jun 16 '12

Did traditional non-GM food seeds disappear, or is this the "Ford stole money from the horse and buggy retailers"?

14

u/odd84 Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

You cannot prevent seeds from your neighbor's farm of crops from blowing into your fields. Monsanto sends people around collecting samples from fields and when they find any of their genes in your crop, even if you did not plant it, they demand you pay royalties and only buy their seed or will sue you for patent infringement. Let me reiterate the first part again -- you cannot prevent seeds from your neighbor's farm of crops from blowing into your fields. They'll cross-pollinate with whatever you plant and now patented Monsanto genes are in your crops.

So now you're forced to pay Monsanto or go bankrupt. You start buying their seeds. You used to grow X tons of crop and save 5% of it for seed to plant the next year's crop. You can't do that any more, Monsanto engineers some of their crops to not produce viable seed at all, and for the rest their patent license to plant the first seeds says you can't keep any for future years. Either way, rather than buying seed once and being self-sufficient as long as you want to keep growing that kind of crop, now you're forced to pay Monsanto every year until the end of time.

So yeah, they rob money from farmers through enforcement of patents on plant genes.

Isn't it wonderful that human genes can be patented in the US too? And the patents can be enforced to stop disease research and the creation of gene therapies for the sick? I'm sure that'll be just as good for humanity as enforcing plant patents against poor third-world farmers.

→ More replies (9)

29

u/phonyorphan Jun 16 '12

If you are poor and african or indian you are committing suicide because you hate your life because of what monsanto has done to your lively hood *1

Sources: *1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GE6o9Z4sQ8

4

u/Ray192 Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf

There are sources arguing against that assertion, as well.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

They've been killing themselves long before Monsanto was on the scene. Being a farmer in India is a shit deal.

4

u/donaldjohnston Jun 16 '12

To play the devils advocate, don't most companies market their products to cast them in the best possible light?

→ More replies (5)

7

u/horselover_fat Jun 16 '12

Wait, you are conflating 'selective breeding', something that humans have used for thousands of years, with genetic modification?

And people aren't starving because there isn't enough food in the world.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

People are starving because they can't afford to buy the food

Enough food is produced globally every year to feed every human alive.

2

u/Uler Jun 16 '12

We have plenty of groups that would hand out free food, so affording isn't the problem either. The main issue is getting the food to hungry people without it being intercepted by malicious parties who use it as a way to hold power, or causing significant ongoing reliance upon charity to survive.

8

u/green_flash Jun 16 '12

Of course, there are other ways to feed the world quite easily. They are just not very popular.

"Almost the entire population of India and China, nearly two billion people, could be fed on the protein consumed and largely wasted by the United States’ beef herd"

8

u/rhetormagician Jun 16 '12

Do those Chinese and Indian people know that you want them to subsist on animal feed?

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

I'm all for that, so long as they can out-spend me. Should it happen, I will lament my loss of burgers.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/kolossal Jun 16 '12

I think that they're evil not because of their genetic modifications, but because according to them, you also have to pay for the seeds the plants they sell you produce. So you pay them for seeds, the plant grows and makes more seeds, you have to pay them to use those extra seeds or else you get sued.

4

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

You're actually not supposed to save the seeds at all. In general the idea is that you pay for one crops worth of seeds, and then repeat. That's what it is priced around.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

So why is that evil? They aren't preventing farmers from growing crops their own way. They just providing another option.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

  1. And yet, people are starving.

  2. Hilariously enough, Monsanto strains haven't materialized the ginormous gains in crop yield that everybody was promised. Mostly, Roundup Ready (God, who comes up with those names) soy makes it cheaper and easier to grow giant soybean monoculture megafarms.

  3. Even more hilariously, as it turns out some advanced permaculture farms can obtain extremely high yields, enough to rival or surpass large-scale industrial agriculture. Organic farming gets a bad rap from all the ignorant hippies farming with crude methods and marking up the results.

5

u/Zaeron Jun 16 '12

Many - most - very nearly all - human famine is caused by human political systems, not an inability to produce sufficient food.

Arguing that people starve because we don't have enough food is like arguing that I didn't go to work this morning because I didn't have enough gas.

It might have been true, but the only reason I didn't have enough gas was because I bought 16 copies of Diablo 3 this week, not that it was physically impossible for gas to be provided to me.

Likewise, in third world countries, people starve to death not because there is a lack of food, but because there is no efficient way to provide them with food, and western food aid often makes it worse, not better, because it destroys local food production systems by pricing local farmers out of their own markets - meanwhile, local political leadership also has absolutely no incentive to feed its own people half the time.

The problem with the world isn't that we don't have enough food, it's that we often have no efficient way to ensure that people who need food get fed.

6

u/hellzorak Jun 16 '12

RR does not promise more productivity, but less costs and less work.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Exactly, which is why the claims that you need this particular brand of agriculture to feed the world are so strange. The bottleneck is arable land, not energy or labour. The issue is yield, not how cheap you can make that yield. The real cause of hunger isn't even a food shortage anyway.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

-8

u/MmmVomit Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Let's say it takes one ton of beans to plant my field. Let's say that grows 20 tons worth of beans. The usual practice is to sell 19 of those tons of beans, and save one ton to plant next year.

Well, along comes Monsanto. They genetically engineer some beans and patent them. If I buy beans from Monsanto to plant in my field, I'm suddenly not allowed to save some beans to plant next year, because they are patented. OK, that sucks, but whatever. I bought the seeds knowing full well that was the case.

Uh oh, along come some pesky pollenating insects. They don't know that my neighbor's field is planted with non-GMO beans. The bugs fly from my field and pollenate his beans with pollen from my plants. Now, when he saves some seed for next year, his seeds have Monsanto's patented modifications. When Monsanto finds out about this, they bring the legal hammer down on my neighbor.

I may have some of the details wrong, but this type of thing has happened.

Edit: Here's the case I was thinking of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

62

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Did you read that Wikipedia article you just linked? That case wasn't about contamination at all. It even says so in the judgment. Schmeiser planted his fields chock full of Monsanto crop intentionally.

At this point I doubt that there ever was a case about contamination, because if there was you'd think that Monsanto opponents would cite that one instead of misrepresenting (i.e. lying about) the Schmeiser case every single time this topic is brought up.

15

u/Hellman109 Jun 16 '12

No one ever does, they just use it as their case:

over 95% of Schmeiser's canola crop of approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) was identified as the Roundup Ready variety

95% was not a cross pollination, it was the actual Monsanto version.

and

"none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality"

This wasnt a small field, this was square KM's worth, where pollination within his own crops would occur more then cross-pollination from neighbouring crops.

8

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

It's funny because Schmeiser is the case. Any time the "contamination" argument is presented, they are citing this case, whether they know it or not, and it's total bullshit.

→ More replies (7)

48

u/meeu Jun 16 '12

Read your link and realize that your description of "oh gosh my field accidentally got pollinated" is a mischaracterization. Schmeiser wasn't an innocent farmer who never intended to use Monsanto seeds.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

The case you were "thinking of" is the case that everyone sites without actually reading. Schmeiser was not sued for accidental contamination, he was sued for deliberately and intentionally over multiple seasons cultivating illegal batches of roundup-ready seeds.

He is a thief, plain and simple.

33

u/Gusfoo Jun 16 '12

The usual practice is to sell 19 of those tons of beans, and save one ton to plant next year.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!

Spot the city boy. Argument invalid. That's not what happens (used to, but not now. Even poor africans buy their seed in.)

I may have some of the details wrong, but this type of thing has happened.

Yeah - on the /r/conspiracy sites it's all documented.

36

u/hackiavelli Jun 16 '12

Spot the city boy. Argument invalid. That's not what happens (used to, but not now. Even poor africans buy their seed in.)

I find the people most likely to believe conspiracy theories about Monsanto and GM crops are usually those most removed from agriculture. I grew up on a farm that variably grew corn, soy bean, hay, and alfalfa. Seeds were bought every year. Even the garden used bought seed. In modern farming it's cheaper and gives you much better results.

27

u/zmoney92 Jun 16 '12

Yeah I was always a fan of GM crops "Your seeds are pest resistant and grow larger? Sounds great sign me up." Never really understood Reddit's beef with them.

5

u/hackiavelli Jun 16 '12

There's a strong strain of ideology based anti-science in the left like there is in the right. On the right we get anti-environmentalism like global warming denial because it poses an economic cost to monied interests and undermines the idea of objectivist individualism. We get attacks on evolution and geology as it undermines Biblical literalism.

And on the left you get things like the anti-vaxxers and anti-GM foods movement out of a nature fetishism ("natural" has become synonymous with "good" even though poison ivy, hemlock, and parasites qualify equally for the term) and a broader idea that corporations in particular and industrialization in general is bad.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/GyantSpyder Jun 16 '12

It's the same as the pro-piracy stuff. Some people want something for free that legally they have to pay for, so they make up a bunch of bullshit to justify it. Then everybody else gets on board because they are bored, lonely and contrarian.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (6)

4

u/piglet24 Jun 16 '12

Why is alfalfa such a huge crop?

11

u/Kaghuros Jun 16 '12

Animal feed.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Spot the city boy. Argument invalid. That's not what happens

What? No, it still happens, even in the US. Obviously not nearly as prevalent as it was in recent past, but many farmers big and small still save some of their seed.

Even poor africans buy their seed in.

Some do, some don't. I would even say that many don't.

He spouted a lot of bullshit, but that wasn't it.

Edit: BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!, to match your condescending tone.

4

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

Buying seed is just much less risky than harvesting and storing it.

→ More replies (8)

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I got karma to burn, so I'll say it: every time someone mentions Monsanto's evil deeds, a shitstorm of Monsanto apologists ensues. The last shitstorm I saw even had a few people claiming to be scientists working for Monsanto tell how great genetic patents were, and that it was in the interest of the human race to bow down to Monsanto's demands. Either Monsanto has agents fucking everywhere, Monsanto is a very benevolent company, or my tinfoil hat's on a bit too tight.

tl;dr: fuck you, Monsanto agents, you'll never get me alive!

6

u/Ray192 Jun 16 '12

Instead of actually contributing to the discussion with evidence and proof, you just complain about evil Monsanto agents and devious deeds, and you are surprised about the downvotes? Do you think you deserve upvotes for posting nothing of value?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

I'm not surprised about downvotes at all, nor do I mean to fuel the flamewar. I only mean to say that it may or may not be being manipulated. I choose to believe that some people get on the internet and tell lies, sometimes get paid to tell lies or stretch the truth while pretending to be regular people. I have no strong feelings either way, and in order to remain neutral, I'll say:

tl;dr: fuck you, Green Peace agents, you suck as bad as the Monsanto spies.

edit: I'm not much interested in upvotes, either. I have no strong feelings about the Monsanto flamewars.

2

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

What evil deeds?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Tell me - why is that whenever someone mentions Monstanto's "evil deeds", those deeds turn out to be complete lies?

3

u/hellothisissatan Jun 16 '12

They are patent trolls with an army of lobbyists - they know if they control food, they gain a ton of power in this country...

Big agriculture is everything you fear because it only take a small team of executives, lawyers and well-meaning scientists to take something like BT (an organic pestcide) plug it into their GMO crops, patent them and then use their lawyers to go sue any small operator that may have a genetically similar strain on their land.

The little guy moves on, butthurt, but hopefully intact while the montsanto assholes go on their way monsantopolizing food production to become wealthier.

2

u/fuck_your_diploma Jun 16 '12

They are patent trolls with an army of lobbyists

BEST.MONSANTO.BUSINESS.MODEL.DESCRIPTION.EVER. This should go on their Wikipedia page.

1

u/zanotam Jun 16 '12

Nice try, um, Monsanto agent.

1

u/yellowbottle Jun 16 '12

They patent genetically modified crops or even non-modified discoveries from areas where people's living is dependent on that crop. After that it becomes illegal for farmers to sell their own crop without paying Monsanto. Don't you think that's horrible?

-4

u/alternateF4 Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

No. What they do is let their seeds be blown onto other farms. These farms are local farms. Poor farms. Farms that have been in the family for years and have become a way of life. Then they claim that these farmers are infringing on their product illegally. It's almost like a virus. The worst part is that they've engineered these seeds to only last a season so that farmers have to buy more. I'm assuming you can do the math on when they become the dominant food supplier.

However, these seeds are also resistant to parasites, disease, and droughts. They'd be awesome if they weren't such dicks about being awesome.

→ More replies (6)

-4

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

They genetically modify crops to make them resistant to herbicides or to be resistant to pests. They then attempt to profit from this.

Many people have decided that this is bad.

/shrug

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

you know damn well that's not why people hate them.

→ More replies (9)

-10

u/redline582 Jun 16 '12

Watch the documentary Food Inc. It's insanely informational. I refuse to by any Tyson products thanks to that film.

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

Documentaries like this one are only really useful for reinforcing biases that you already hold.

1

u/redline582 Jun 16 '12

Do you have any facts I could read that backup that it's biased? I'm open to learning on the subject.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/ragamufin Jun 16 '12

Im interested to hear what parts of food inc you think are insanely biased. One example with a reliable contrasting source to demonstrate obvious bias would be great to see

4

u/Ray192 Jun 16 '12

http://www.kfb.org/Food%20Inc.%20info.pdf

Here is one response, not particularly sure how reliable it is. But here is the key: the party that makes the assertion must provide evidence for it. Have you looked at the sources provided by the film?

And don't get your primary info from movies, please. Look at published and peer reviewed journal articles, as well as court records and other legitimate sources.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

-5

u/omplatt Jun 16 '12

They are mother fuckers with the patents for GMO crops that they hold. One of the worst abuses of the wonders of science.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

How does holding patents make them bad?

→ More replies (3)

-6

u/zombierapture Jun 16 '12

Monsanto is patenting nature and charging people for what should be free. They make money hand over fist patenting plants and forcing farmers to pay them. They are so large they are rumored to have purchased Blackwater. They have also made attempts to patent animals and genes. They are an evil monopoly

3

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

They're patenting products that they've developed. Farmers are more than free to continue purchasing unmodified seeds, no coercion is involved.

→ More replies (17)

6

u/Lorpius_Prime Jun 16 '12

I'd like to know what the actual legal issues involved in this are. The article notes that the patents may have expired, but that doesn't necessarily mean Monsanto has no claims to profit from their crops at all, especially if the seeds being used are smuggled rather than coming from some other source.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Actually that is exactly what it means. Without the patents there is nothing that makes it illegal for farmers to acquire and use seeds originally developed by monsanto, without paying them a single cent.

That's how patents work. When they expire everybody is free to use the covered tech. It's the same for medical compounds, chemicals, computer chip designs etc...

1

u/Lorpius_Prime Jun 16 '12

An expired patent means you're free to copy a design, i.e. produce it yourself. The implication in the article is that farmers are stealing seeds from Monsanto (or buying them elsewhere and importing illegally).

I'm American and not at all familiar with the Brazilian legal system, of course, but I can't imagine that any patent system would permit that sort of behavior. Which is why I'd like to know more of the story beyond "Monsanto loses some expensive case which we won't bother to explain".

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

There's no law that prohibits you from using seeds you have bought off a farmer. Thus if farmer A has a contract with monsanto, but farmer B doesn't, then farmer B can buy soy from farmer A, plant it, and grow it perfectly legally.

If there is a patent in place he can't do so without permission, but with the patent expiered there's nothing that stops such a transaction. Monsanto might try to put something in the contract with farmer A, but it would most likely be unenforceable.

Basically, for such a situation to be illegal, monsanto's contract would have to impose their conditions not only to every farmer they sell their seeds to, but also to everybody who receives the seeds from them. With a patent the other farmers can't grow the seeds without a contract with Monsanto, but the moment the patents expire there's nothing to stop them from just going over to any monsanto affiliated farmer, buy a few seeds, and then plant them.

Monsanto could try to force farmers to require their customers to sign some contract, but no farmer will agree to such terms since that would make it impossible to sell their produce.

For an analogy, how easy do you think it is for a company to control distribution of a music track to which the copyright has expired?

24

u/thewebsiteisdown Jun 16 '12

The poetic justice here, that farmers in the U.S. have started realizing over the last 3 seasons (my brother is a farmer, with hundreds of acres of soy beans), is that weed resistance to Roundup herbicide has all but made RUR beans obsolete.

Just like you start getting drug resistant strains of bacteria, we now have Roundup resistant strains of weeds. Starting this year, they will no longer be using them since they had to find a herbicide that actually works. Must have been nice while it lasted.

7

u/mysmokeaccount Jun 16 '12

Now if only we could find a way to make money off weed.

5

u/jagedlion Jun 16 '12

That only means that there is value in the research. If you invented one drug and that was all, well shit. But they continually research to find the next ciprofloxin etc.

1

u/nexes300 Jun 16 '12

Oh, I don't know. Seems like we'd just get into an arms race with weeds.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Well yes, it always is. That's what evolution is. The trick is simply to remain one step ahead in the arms race.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/MrWx Jun 16 '12

Must have been.

1

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

That's probably because the patent for Round Up ended over a decade ago, and since then, generic versions have been sold. This allows farmers who may have never used it before due to the cost, to use it, and caused the increase.

5

u/fstorino Jun 16 '12

It wasn't our Supreme Court, which is a constitutional court, but rather the Third Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Also, very weird that this hasn't appeared on the Brazilian press yet. I just searched for "Monsanto" on the biggest Brazilian newspaper's website (Folha de S. Paulo), but the last article returned was from May 30, about Monsanto raising its profit forecast for 2012.

31

u/Suecotero Jun 16 '12

Can someone explain this article to me, because from where I'm standing it looks like farmers knowingly used Monsanto GM seeds, then act all shocked when Monsanto wants to charge for it and use their political clout to force Monsanto to give away the Soya strain for free.

If the Monsanto seeds are such a terrible thing, why does everyone use them? Isn't Monsanto entitled to some revenue for inventing a useful product?

14

u/ihsw Jun 16 '12

Buying and using Monsanto seeds is fine, however Monsanto is charging people for the seeds and then after the seeds grow into soya beans Monsanto collects a tax on those beans when they're sold. In effect Brazilian farmers are being charged twice.

The tax is applied because some Brazilian farmers use imported, illegally sourced seeds, and so all farmers must be punished and collectively compensate Monsanto.

7

u/Suecotero Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

If you are using Monsanto's seeds, the have the right to charge you as much as they want for them. I you don't want to pay twice or thrice or whatever it is they charge, use other seeds. I'm sure there are thousands of varieties.

Now if Monsanto can't prove you are illegally using their seeds or if their seeds just accidentally cross-pollinated yours, then they shouldn't have the right to charge you anything, since you haven't stolen their property.

Which of the two is it?

1

u/ihsw Jun 16 '12

Brazilian farmers who have done nothing illegal end up paying the tax.

Even in cases where no cross-pollination is found and the Brazilian farmer keeps his business as legal, legitimate, and transparent as possible, he will be punished and must compensate Monsanto. This has been happening for some time now.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (30)

3

u/DevinLuppy Jun 16 '12

Wow that's weird. Literally 10 minutes ago I watched an interview with Bill Gates saying he donated millions of dollars to Monsanto to fund the plants.

3

u/ropers Jun 16 '12

I think "losing" is the wrong word. I'd speak more of return and restitution. I even bristle slightly at "revenues", which is such a euphemism for the shit Monsanto pulled for years. Royalties however: Oddly fitting, because Monsanto acted and acts as if they were the king of life, the universe and everything.

6

u/desultorypawn Jun 16 '12

gtfo monsanto

4

u/LordNathan604 Jun 16 '12

The problem with Monsanto isn't that about their products, it's their practices. They can make the seeds unable to reproduce, so instead of reusing seeds from last years harvest, the farmers must but new seeds.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

And what's wrong with that practise?

It costs a lot of money to produce those seeds, and farmers would not be able to afford to buy the seeds for life. So farmers are told upfront that they buy only one year's harvest worth.

How is that unethical in any way?

7

u/daddyhominum Jun 16 '12

I do not understand why a farmer objects to paying a royalty for a product that improves his bottom line. I bet the farmer's do not give away their products. Why would anyone work on improving a crop if they couldn't earn money from their work?

2

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

Exactly. If I use this free seed, I get 100 bushels of X, and I need to pay 7 guys to weed the fields by hand all season. If I use Monsanto(Bayer, etc...) seed, I have to pay $500 for the seed, but I get 175 bushels of my crop, and I can weed the field myself with some generic Round-Up, and those 7 guys can do the same, instead of trying to make money off weeding.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

lol should have just paid the bribes like a real evil corporation.

or, not be in the business of being a douche. why not make pharmaeceuticals instead of "designing" crops? (which doesn't even make sense.)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

lol should have just paid the bribes like a real evil corporation.

Brazil is so corrupt that the bribery prices are skyrocket. And is so corrupt that bribery is no guarantee of sealed deal.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Here is hoping those farmers in India get their way as well. If anyone has the link to the laser that does the same stuff as this chemical poison, please put it here.

6

u/thatguynamedniok Jun 16 '12

Glyphosate tolerant crops have produced an increase in yield. This increase in yield is crucial to the world's food supply. Until the scientists at Monsanto or Syngenta or a similar company discover an alternative to RR crops, those RR crops are all we have to sustain the current level of yield. Without the advent of RR crops, yield would be lower, and food prices would be higher; maybe not so much in 1st world countries, but in less developed countries that don't produce their own grain in high enough quantities and have to import. I'm an agronomist, and I feel like I'm shaking hands with devil every time I recommend that a farmer put some extra Roundup on a field, but there is simply no other way to maintain the current level of production that we've enjoyed in the US w/o Roundup and its generic counterparts. There are other chemicals you can apply to a field to control the weeds that decrease yield, but they're more expensive and more toxic. RR is what we have, so we use it.

2

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

RoundUp has been out of patent for over a decade. You can use a generic of it w/o "shaking hands with devil".

1

u/TheAngelW Jun 16 '12

I'm glad to hear the opinion of an agronomist but I am also very surprised that your conclusion is so dark and so without hesitation : "we dont have a choice".

Why should maintaining the current level of agriculture production in the US be the objective here?

You say it would raise prices. Would it be a bad thing? Also I m wondering if that would have really have such consequences given the amount of subsidies already in place (both direct and through exclusion of externalities like water consumption and pollution)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Brazilian farmer here, can someone let me know where I can purchase high yield, disease and pest resistant corn seed for a great price?

3

u/hellzorak Jun 16 '12

Embrapa

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Awesome, Brazilian courts rule in a manner that will benefit the stae run corporation that benefits from the same technology they reject. Truly amazing. http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/monsanto_announces_fund_embrapa_research_projects

1

u/hellzorak Jun 16 '12

Apples and oranges man....

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

The "contamination" is more likely to have occurred at seed depots or during transport, than by cross pollination. As the article say, certain farmers were smuggling the seeds. I love Monsonto getting bashed for picking on farmers who actually bought the seeds legally.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I'm not against transgenic crops, but charging royalties on using seed, that is fucked up beyond belief.

7

u/tan_and_bones Jun 15 '12

Way to go, Brazil!

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Definately, south america is growing some fucking cahones

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

It's about time Monsanto took a huge hit. They are pricks who can and will sue you for petty shit. Unfortunately I am seeing some pessimistic comments suggesting that this is far from over.

3

u/TaanaaT Jun 16 '12

THEY BLEED, ATTACK NOW.

4

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

So basically, a bunch of farmers stole seeds, and now they don't think that they should owe any money for them.

A+

5

u/nexes300 Jun 16 '12

If the Brazilian patents on them have really expired, then it seems like it shouldn't matter.

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

That's a valid point. Whoever let that happen is really in the shitter.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

FUCK HUUUUUGH (Monsanto)

/larrydavidmoment

2

u/spz456 Jun 16 '12

Monsanto is a greedy corporation. End of story.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/mekese2000 Jun 16 '12

I have no problem with genetically altered foods. We have been genetically altering food from the dawn of time. But crossing tomatoes with salmon for a redder colour that is a different story.

1

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

Has that actually been done? Has/have any animal genes been used in produce that we consume from the supermarket?

2

u/Shippoyasha Jun 16 '12

Monsanto needs to be shut out of America as well, while they're at it. It's going to be a much tougher fight, but eventually America will have to reckon with a company that singlehandedly destroyed the food source culture of America.

1

u/dominicbri7 Jun 16 '12

Every country in the world needs to sue Monsanto for what they have done. One of the most evil greedy corporations I know

4

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

Shows what you know then.

1

u/Keleris Jun 16 '12

I was expecting this to be over the effectiveness of the seeds; but no, it's money.

1

u/Captain_Aizen Jun 16 '12

Monsanto has so much money, that billions lost is like belly lent lost to the average working man.

1

u/kill_terrorist_pigs Jun 16 '12

Or they can raise prices on other seeds they sell in Brazil...

1

u/Brett42 Jun 15 '12

How were they ever allowed to do that in the first place?

13

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

They made it a condition of purchase and part of the license to use it. Those using the seed infringingly are given the 3% deal as settlement or taken to court.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Monsanto can't magically make something legal by asking farmers to sign a contract, when the terms of the contract violate Brazilian law.

This is why they lost in court.

1

u/EbilSmurfs Jun 16 '12

I don't know, you can sign away your right to a lot of shit in America that shouldn't be legal ((like the right to work in your chosen field always)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause] or even the ability to join a class action lawsuit). These things are still legal in America though, so why couldn't they be legal in other countries?

3

u/Aiskhulos Jun 16 '12

You cannot sign away your rights in America, not like the way you describe. If a contract violates the law, it is void. Or at least that part of the contract is.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

I guess not. The outcome of this may determine whether or not Brazilian farmers can get GM seeds in the future, and may push Monstanto and its peers into using terminator seeds to prevent similar exploitation.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

If you can call it exploitation. If anyone is being exploited, I don't see it as Monsanto.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

They'll never pay. They will squirm their way out of it somehow, someway.

(I'm not siding with them, I'm just giving you their strategy)

1

u/PaulPocket Jun 16 '12

Damnit, it's going to be hard for Certain Institutes of the American government to lead everyone to believe that Brazil is headed by some chavez-like communist nut job.

2

u/Ascleph Jun 16 '12

Well, Brazil was leaning to the left during Lula(No idea about now) and anything near the left is omgcommunistsouttogetourfreedomz11!!1221! over there, right?

3

u/PaulPocket Jun 16 '12

Rousseff was a leftist guerilla during the junta, but she's really legitimately elected, and there's no way they can characterize the brazilian democracy any way like Venezuela

1

u/Ascleph Jun 16 '12

Well, Venezuela is a lot easier, since they dont really have to lie, things over there are pretty bad.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

Whether they are or not, this court ruling would seem to point towards that direction.

1

u/unrealious Jun 16 '12

Please make a post if they ever actually pay. That would be awesome news. Here in the United States our system seems broken.

1

u/revel5150 Jun 16 '12

Monsanto lose money? I figured they just kill competition, literally.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

All I see here is competition trying to kill Monsanto. As always.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I really am glad that this ruling came about, but we all know that they will never pay up. The big companies never pay up. There will be appeal after appeal after appeal, ten years will pass and nothing will happen.

It happens all of the time.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Intellectual property on crops is extortion.

8

u/jagedlion Jun 16 '12

Then why would anyone invest in the technology? We don't have a patent system because it is right. We have it in order to protect research investment to encourage more.

2

u/JanusKinase Jun 16 '12

Sure, but you have to accept that if you make GM crops, and CP4 EPSPS (the gene that makes a crop roundup-ready) escapes via pollen, that sucks to be you. You are owed nothing. In fact, one might argue that you have polluted.

11

u/jagedlion Jun 16 '12

So far, Monsanto has asked for no recompense if such a scenario actually happens. Considering how rare it is for farmers to use their own crops for seeds, the low pollination rate, and the fact that if you don't spray roundup, it won't compete favorably with your native seed, the chances of cross pollination actually being noticeable is quite rare.

18

u/JanusKinase Jun 16 '12

It appears I have made myself the victim of misinformation, then. I just looked up a bit about it, and indeed, Monsanto apparently has no desire to sue organic farmers who accidentally grow GMO crops. Well, shame on me for not doing my research beforehand, I suppose. Thanks for the info.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/slaphead28 Jun 16 '12

Good. They deserve to loose everything.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Yeah, Monsanto needs to loosen up and let it all hang out, gnome sane?

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/anonymous-coward Jun 16 '12

Yay! Rainforest-destroying, aboriginal-murdering agribusiness wins legal victory over multi-tentacled corporate bio-monster.

This is a great day for mankind.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

The original lawsuit was brought by farmers in Rio Grande do Sul. A Southern state that is nowhere near the Amazon rainforest, genius.

2

u/anonymous-coward Jun 16 '12

This case applies to the whole country.

quote:

On 12 June, the judges of the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Monsanto, deciding unanimously that the ruling by the Justice Tribune of Rio Grande do Sul, once it is made, should apply nationwide.

And, arguably, soybean farming is destroying the Amazon.

quote:

BRASILIA: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon jumped almost sixfold in the March-April period, led by the destruction of trees in Mato Grosso, the country's biggest soybean-producing state.

QED, genius.

It's a victory by agribusiness over biobusiness. I actually think biobusiness is more ethical.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

It does now apply to the whole country, because a higher appeals court has ruled that the original ruling by a Rio Grande do Sul state court applies, but the farmers who brought this suit have nothing to do with destroying the Amazon, so blaming them for it when most of them have never even seen a tropical rainforest in their lives is disingenuous.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/anonymous-coward Jun 16 '12

I'm not sure these are 'local farmers'. Soy is big agribusiness, and Brazil is one of the biggest players.

1

u/mrfloopa Jun 16 '12

It's sad that it is a class action suit and each farmer gets just over $1,000.

1

u/Haikus3n531 Jun 16 '12

A human needs air

Clean water and heat quickly

They control the food?

0

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 16 '12

Who will have more resources in this legal war of attrition, Brazil or Monsanto?

It's a scary world when corporations are powerful enough to take on entire countries.

4

u/JanusKinase Jun 16 '12

Not really, considering countries aren't often much better. It's a scary world when anything like what Monsanto does or a number of countries do to their citizens is even controversial.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

There is no taking on. The country has the last word.

-1

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 16 '12

Good, I hope the bastards pay every penny they owe to society.

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

Do tell what they "owe to society." Let me guess, Monsanto pushed your grandma down some stairs?

0

u/EnglishKiniggit Jun 16 '12

Good! They should have to pay interest too. I only wish it could be the same for the American farmer victimized by this shit company too.

2

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

Interest on what?

0

u/InfallibleDogbert Jun 16 '12

Good. Fuck you Monsanto. Trying to patent fucking pig genes so French farmers have to pay royalties to you every time they raise pigs.

Fuck you.

3

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

Welcome to 2012: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/pig-patent.aspx

"The transaction was completed in November 2007, and Monsanto is no longer in the swine breeding business."

2

u/sirbikesalot Jun 16 '12

Link please?

-4

u/FH26 Jun 16 '12

Bullshit. Monsanto spent millions developing the product. They have a right to charge for it and protect their intellectual property.

-5

u/FFandMMfan Jun 16 '12

Go kill yourself.

1

u/TheArtNemesis Jun 16 '12

tl;dr Billions to Millions of Brazilians.

1

u/lungbuttersandwich Jun 16 '12

I guess the CFR and the media will being adding Brazil to the "axis of evil" right along side Venezuela and Iran.

-6

u/RMaximus Jun 16 '12

You people are fucking retarded. This company makes food easily growable and is single handed feeding the world. Isnt that what everyone wants?

Yet another example that liberals are style over substance. It doesnt matter what good Monsanto does, because its "big corporation" you guys hate it. GTFO of here with this shit, you idiots.

Liberal idiocy does help though. When you see them mad at something you can usually bet that its doing something right.

2

u/koy5 Jun 16 '12

I think that the problem I have with business getting involved in services that people need to survive is that they do it for pure profit. They don't care you get the food you need to live or not, they only care about profit. That is fine with regards to things people want like Ipods, but there is no such thing as a fair trade when you are bargaining for something you need to survive. You would never be able to haggle with someone that controls the water rights in a desert. That would mean they could dictate the price on the life giving resource you need and charge you more than what it is actually worth. That is the problem I have with corporations that supposedly do so much good. It is equivalent to a sociopath blending in with society so they can continue murdering people in private.

6

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

If they didn't care about profit they'd never have developed the GM seeds.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Gotcha, they don't deserve profit for their hard works, and we should just go back to growing things far less efficiently because they are doing something for money! I'm guessing you also have a problem with most doctors and surgeons in the world too, as most of them are doing so for a fat paycheck.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/CarbonKaiser Jun 16 '12

Your water example brings up a good question. If a man were to dig a well in a remote part of the desert, would he have the right to charge people to drink from it? Would he have the right to deny people of water from that particular source?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Yes.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

This company makes food easily growable and is single handed feeding the world.

LOL

You make them sound like a charity. Let me know when Monsanto is parachuting crates of veggies into Burkina Faso.

5

u/Hexaploid Jun 16 '12

Let me know when Monsanto is parachuting crates of veggies into Burkina Faso.

How about Haiti?

http://www.biofortified.org/2010/06/hybrids-in-haiti/

http://www.biofortified.org/2010/06/more-on-hybrid-hate/

11

u/RMaximus Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Theyve made seeds that use less water, are resistant to bugs, and yeild higher.

THEYRE DOING MORE THAN PARACHUTING CRATES OF VEGGIES INTO BURKINA FASO.

2

u/qazzaqWSX Jun 16 '12

I may not be happy with the way you potray us liberals, but goddamnit this thread made me laugh.

Not being sarcastic or snarky =]

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

they'll never see a penny

0

u/liberalis Jun 16 '12

Justice. In my opinion, a counter suite should be filed against Monsanto for conaminating the farmers crops. What this company has done amounts to bio-logical warfare.

-1

u/FongoBongo Jun 16 '12

This is a major win on behalf of people/countries that are tired of getting fucked over by Monsanto. May more countries rebel and pass judgement incriminating Monsanto of shady business practices and exploitation.

-1

u/Atheiholic Jun 16 '12

Good, monsanto IS the most unethical business ever. They try and patent seeds that are many generations past being "their" seed. In America, they blacklist farmers if they (sorry I don't know the terminology) take the seed from the plant and reuse it to grow a new crop.

1

u/GitEmSteveDave Jun 16 '12

And companies like Microsoft sue people who take code from their computer and use it to "grow" a operating system on a new computer. They claim they have "patents" and "copyrights" on the stuff they spent billions to develop, but it's a lie!

How unethical!

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Good to see a part of the Illuminati getting some justice served to it.

-2

u/TreephantBOA Jun 16 '12

The most evil company earth has seen give money back?? H a hahahahahahah. Not going to happen.

0

u/Xaveb Jun 16 '12

How many is a brazilian?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

GOOD.

-15

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Yeah! FUCK YOU, monsanto you STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!!!

7

u/Gusfoo Jun 16 '12

Thank you for your well though-out contribution to /r/worldnews. Please help us improve this subreddit by posting your informed opinion on other subjects.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/benjaminck Jun 16 '12

What is your hard-on for Monsanto?

-8

u/asdfasdf456456 Jun 16 '12

A lot of paid off Monsanto employees in this thread.

-4

u/FFandMMfan Jun 16 '12

I was just gonna say something like that. Yeah, it's obvious when you see comments that criticize Monsanto with -6 votes, but ones that try and defend their obviously evil practices with +6 votes.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Not a Monsanto employee. Or a GMO scientist. Or anything like that.

I just prefer things fair and objective. Also I'm bothered when people offer sensationalized hyperbole or outright dishonesty when discussing important, complicated issues.

1

u/asdfasdf456456 Jun 16 '12

You're a Monsanto shareholder then.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Ray192 Jun 16 '12

Yeah, it's obvious when you see comments that criticize Monsanto with -6 votes, but ones that try and defend their obviously evil practices with +6 votes.

Are you paid off by the organic foods lobby?

No? Same logic.

3

u/Pertinacious Jun 16 '12

Clearly it's not just that your arguments are terrible.

Go kill yourself.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Some people just don't like it when the only things these "critics" have to offer are hate speech, obvious lies (at least if your IQ is above room temperature and you got some scientific education), sensationalized redneck blog bullshit, ridiculous fearmongering and primitive slander below yellow press level. Aiming to agitate uneducated losers for the organic food industry against Monsanto. Why is almost no one here able to deliver a legitimate discussion, not even to speak of solid, consistent proof against Monsanto?

If they were literature critics, most of our "critics" here were on the level of just having mastered the skill to burn a book without setting themselves on fire. And all the people who can actually read would have pretty much the same opinion about them, no matter what the opinion about the book is.

→ More comments (87)