Balance

krystalcunningham:

the-lone-pamphleteer:

by Jacob Chamberlain for commondreams.org

                      

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, ordering Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, to pay Monsanto more than $84,000 for patent infringement for using second generation Monsanto seeds purchased second hand—a ruling which will have broad implications for the ownership of ‘life’ and farmers’ rights in the future.

In the case, Bowman had purchased soybean seeds from a grain elevator—where seeds are cheaper than freshly engineered Monsanto GE (genetically engineered) seeds and typically used for animal feed rather than for crops. The sources of the seeds Bowman purchased were mixed and were not labeled. However, some were “Roundup Ready” patented Monsanto seeds.

The Supreme Court Justices, who gave Monsanto a warm reception from the start, ruled that Bowman had broken the law because he planted seeds which naturally yielded from the original patented seed products—Monsanto’s policies prohibit farmers from saving or reusing seeds from Monsanto born crops.

Farmers who use Monsanto’s seeds are forced to buy the high priced new seeds every year.

Ahead of the expected ruling, Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), asked in an op-ed earlier this year, “Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?”:

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?

[Monsanto’s] 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.

Bowman had argued that he was respecting his contract with Monsanto, purchasing directly from them each year, but couldn’t afford Monsanto’s high prices for his riskier late season crops. Bowman’s defense argued that Monsanto’s patent was “exhausted” through the process of natural seed reproduction and no longer applied to Bowman’s second generation seeds.

“If they don’t want me to go to the elevator and buy that grain,” Bowman had stated, “then Congress should pass a law saying you can’t do it.”

The Center for Food Safety released a report in February which shows three corporations control more than half of the global commercial seed market.

As a result, from 1995-2011 the average cost to plant 1 acre of soybeans rose 325%.

As AP reports, more than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

Vandana Shiva, an expert on seed patents and their effects on farmers around the world, wrote recently:

Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.

Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.

[See other Lone Pamphleteer posts about Monsanto and watch a trailer for the documentary David vs. Monsanto.]

This is so disgusting.

It’s really too bad this is the first case to hit the Supreme Court regarding Monsanto’s control of its patented seeds and their “progeny”.  Because… in this case, the guy actually bought the seeds (progeny— 2nd generation seeds)   secondhand to plant on his property, which is apparently strictly forbidden according to Monsanto.  They created them, so they get to set the rules, so the argument goes.  And in the strictest sense and protection of the patent that may be appropriate—he broke the rule, they say.  However, the reason it sucks that this is the first case is because it sets a precedent of support without having to consider some of the unintentional consequences (not part of this particular case) of protecting a patent on a product which self-multiplies and blows around in the damn wind.  

When another farmer in a neighboring plot, who chooses not to go with Monsanto, is found to have Monsanto product in his field (and this is happening in mass all over the planet; see India farmer suicide link above), he’s then sued into either becoming a Monsanto teet suckler himself or he’s sued out of existence as a farmer—all due to no wrongful action of his own, other than being too close to a Monsanto plant when the wind was blowing. This is an unintended consequence which the Supreme Court is unwittingly bolstering now with this particular Supreme Court ruling as precedent.  

This is absolutely the dumbest thing one can imagine as an earthling.  Let’s allow a particular corporation to patent and control the fundamental supply of nourishment allowing for our existence on this planet.  Next someone will patent water droplets with nano iron particles that allow the control of water flow with strong electromagnetic fields.  Well the non-patented water would have fallen on your fields but due to water tension HydroX was able to tug the whole rain cloud directly over their retention facility instead.  You want some water, come and get it, $4/ gallon all day!! This supreme court is a joke. — cbg

(via redjeep)