Activists Help Farmer Who Owes Over $80K After Losing Monsanto Patent Case | The Daily Sheeple
Since the Supreme Court upheld Monsanto’s end the other day, Bowman now owes $84,456 to the multi-billion GMO giant Monsanto.Indiegogo project helping to raise funds to pay off this farmer’s outrageous fines to Monsanto:
“A poor 76 year old farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman from Sandborn, Indiana had the courage and tenacity to fight Monsanto all the way to the Supreme Court, and says he doesn’t have the money to pay the $84,456 he’s been sued for. He barely makes ends meet, making do with old run-down tractors and second-hand seed from granaries.
Let’s help this farmer endure this ridiculous debt so he and his family don’t suffer any more under the pressure of this evil lawsuit. It’s important to stand united and not to let this farmer carry this burden by himself, because he has stood up for all of our rights to not have the world’s food supply controlled by Monsanto.
If people rally around him with support it will show that Farmer Bowman’s got allies and show that Monsanto has a growing groundswell of enemies.Let’s show how the People truly want our farmers treated.
Let Monsanto know they can’t bully family farms into extinction.
Please share this everywhere you can.”
Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in genetically modified soybean case
The Supreme Court agreed with Monsanto on Monday that an Indiana farmer’s unorthodox planting of the company’s genetically modified soybeans violated the agricultural giant’s patent.
The court unanimously rejected farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that he was not violating Monsanto’s patent because the company’s pesticide-resistent “Roundup Ready” soybeans replicate themselves. Justice Elena Kagan said there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law.
“We think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit,” Kagan wrote. “Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops.”
We won’t pretend to be well-versed enough in this case and/or patent law (or any legal field for that matter) to have a strong opinion on the outcome of this case, though we suspect there will be more than a few readers who do. Anybody think the Supreme Court got this one wrong?
Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in major patent case
Richard Wolf
USA Today
May 13, 2013The Supreme Court usually isn’t friendly toward questionable patents, but it came down overwhelmingly on the side of agribusiness giant Monsanto Monday in a case that’s bound to resonate throughout the biotechnology industry.
The court ruled unanimously that an Indiana farmer violated Monsanto’s patent on genetically modified soybeans when he culled some from a grain elevator and used them to replant his own crop in future years.
“If simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention,” Justice Elena Kagan ruled in a short 10-page opinion. “The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years as the Patent Act promises, but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted.”
Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in major patent case
The Supreme Court usually isn’t friendly toward questionable patents, but it came down on the side of agribusiness giant Monsanto in a case that’s bound to resonate throughout the biotechnology industry.
Russia Warns Obama: Global War Over “Bee Apocalypse” Coming Soon | EUTimes.net
The shocking minutes relating to President Putin’s meeting this past week with US Secretary of State John Kerry reveal the Russian leaders “extreme outrage” over the Obama regimes continued protection of global seed and plant bio-genetic giants Syngenta and Monsanto in the face of a growing “bee apocalypse” that the Kremlin warns “will most certainly” lead to world war.According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regimes refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations.
At the center of this dispute between Russia and the US, this MNRE report says, is the “undisputed evidence” that a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, are destroying our planets bee population, and which if left unchecked could destroy our world’s ability to grow enough food to feed its population.
So grave has this situation become, the MNRE reports, the full European Commission (EC) this past week instituted a two-year precautionary ban (set to begin on 1 December 2013) on these “bee killing” pesticides following the lead of Switzerland, France, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine, all of whom had previously banned these most dangerous of genetically altered organisms from being used on the continent.
Two of the most feared neonicotinoids being banned are Actara and Cruiser made by the Swiss global bio-tech seed and pesticide giant Syngenta AG which employs over 26,000 people in over 90 countries and ranks third in total global sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market.
Important to note, this report says, is that Syngenta, along with bio-tech giants Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and DuPont, now control nearly 100% of the global market for genetically modified pesticides, plants and seeds.
A Constitutional Argument Against the So-Called "Monsanto Protection Act"*
How awful is a new GMO law amendment you’ve probably heard derided as the Monsanto Protection Act?
To answer that question, I’ve turned to page 199 of my dog-eared 2001 copy of Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law by William F. Funk and Richard H. Seamon. There, the section on the availability of judicial review of federal agency actions begins with a quote from Marbury v. Madison (1803), America’s most important Supreme Court decision.
“[W]hat is there in the exalted station of [an executive] officer,” writes Chief Justice John Marshall, “which shall bar a citizen from asserting, in a court of justice, his legal rights, or shall forbid a court to listen to the claim…?”
Funk and Seamon rightly conclude this portion of Marbury v. Madison stands for the proposition that “the substantive statutory limitations on an agency’s authority found in its statutory mandate would count for little if the threat of judicial review was lacking.”
If a federal agency has the power to bar a court from overturning or halting the actions of that agency—an administrative rulemaking body to which Congress delegates far too much power already—then that body may (and will) act with impunity. The power of such an agency would, in fact, exceed that of Congress itself.
Such a law would be worse than almost any that preceded it in this country. Under no theory of agency with which I’m familiar can one delegate more power than one has. And yet this new amendment to the GMO law appears to place some USDA powers almost entirely outside the scope of judicial review.
In effect, this amendment gives the USDA the power to ignore a federal judge’s ruling in some cases. It would take the power of judicial review out of the hand of judges, crumple it up, toss it on the ground, step on it, and set it ablaze.
The law states that in the event a federal court invalidates USDA approval of a particular GMO crop, the USDA must still “ensur[e] that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities” for an “interim period” of entirely unspecified duration.
“In the event that a seed is approved by the USDA but that approval is challenged by a court ruling, the seed can still be used and sold until the USDA says otherwise, according to that new law,” writes ABC News.
While the law itself sunsets in six months, some previous enumerated USDA “interim” periods have lasted for at least two years. Unenumerated ones? The sky could be the limit.
Though it’s difficult in this case, please ignore if you will the deafening bluster from detractors and supporters of GMOs alike. I’m neither, and I find this background noise distracts from the real issue of judicial review.
(For the smartest, most balanced piece I’ve read on the GMO law, read Dustin Siggins’s excellent post over at the Tea Party Patriots blog. Thanks to Michele Simon, who’s quoted in the post, for pointing out Siggins’s post to me.)
Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who I often agree with, gets it wrong when he claims the GMO law “does not give USDA any new authority” and that the agency is merely implementing rules that reflect the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2010 case of Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms—in effect “codify[ing] existing case law and agency practice.”
The Court in that case, which is very much on point here, actually held just the opposite.
“First, if and when” a USDA action “arguably runs afoul of” the regulations at issue in the case, the Court held in Geertson, a plaintiff “may file a new suit challenging such action and seeking appropriate preliminary relief…. Accordingly, a permanent injunction is not now needed to guard against any present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm.”
(more at the link)
Infowars: Before the Blast, West Fertilizer’s Monsanto Lawsuit
Alexandra Berzon
Wall Street Journal
April 19, 2013As details emerge about the Texas fertilizer plant that was the site of Wednesday’s fatal explosion and fire, a few tidbits can be gleaned from a 2007 lawsuit that the plant’s owners filed against agribusiness giant Monsanto Co.
The suit, filed as a potential class action in U.S. District Court for the western district of Texas, claimed that Monsanto had artificially inflated prices for its herbicide Roundup through anti-competitive actions. The suit did not relate to storing fertilizer, believed to be at the root of Wednesday’s blast.
The suit was filed by Texas Grain Storage Inc. The company now calls itself West Fertilizer Co.
In the suit, the company said that it was started in 1957 as a grain-storage business by the Plasek family in the town of West, Texas. It later built a small fertilizer-blend plant and started selling fertilizer to area farmers.
News to Me: Monsanto Threatens To Sue Vermont If It Passes GMO Labeling Bill
April 21, 2013
Source: Alternet
Despite overwhelming public support, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if it passes.
What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont’s “right to know” bill? They lost their nerve after Monsanto representatives recently threatened that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they pass the bill. [Officials] expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to “go it alone” against Monsanto in court.
During the hearings the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill – more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000.
News to Me: Even The NY Times Is Now Rejecting Monsanto GMO Science
Added by Tom Joad on April 11, 2013.
This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.
I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.
For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.
But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:
“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”
As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.
Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”
As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”
Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.
“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.
News to Me: The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming
Added by Tom Joad on April 10, 2013.
Monsanto’s talk of ‘technology’ tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed,
“Monsanto is an agricultural company.
We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world \produce more while conserving more.”
“Producing more, Conserving more, Improving farmers lives.”
These are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside pictures of smiling, prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra. This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.
Control over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is the source of life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life, especially the life of farmers.
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.
Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.
The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed with Monsanto’s entry: First, Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements, and concentration over the seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been the farmers’ common resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto, for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed. Third, open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity. Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and crop failure. Fifth, Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory processes and, in fact, started to use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships (PPP).
Infowars: Oregon set to ban GM salmon and mandate GMO labeling
Jonathan Benson
naturalnews.com
April 1, 2013All across the country, people are rising up and demanding that the foods they eat be properly identified and honestly labeled. And the constituency of the state of Oregon is no exception, where a trio of legislative bills recently introduced would require that all genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) be properly labeled, as well as prohibit the import and sale of GM salmon, the first transgenic animal to ever be preliminarily approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human consumption.
H.B. 2175, whose chief sponsor is Representative Deborah Boone (D-Cannon Beach), provisions that all foods containing or made with genetically-engineered (GE) material be properly labeled in the state of Oregon. Any food products made with or containing GMOs that are not properly labeled beginning on January 1, 2014, will be deemed misbranded, and its manufacturer held liable for breaking the state’s food labeling requirements.
In the same vein, H.B. 2530 prohibits GE salmon not only from being cultivated and farmed within the state of Oregon, but also from being imported and sold there. As we reported in years past, the “Frankensalmon,” known officially as “AquAdvantage,” was approved by the FDA against the will of the people, and without adequate safety studies proving the fish was safe for human consumption and that it would not contaminate wild fish.
In the event that H.B. 2530 is not passed, H.B. 3177 is waiting in the wings as a backup. This bill, which was proposed by both Rep. Paul Holvey (D-Eugene) and Rep. David Gomberg (D-Central Coast), proposes to require that GE salmon be properly labeled. Like H.B. 2175, H.B. 3177 designates that all GE salmon sold without a proper label is misbranded, and thus in violation of the law.
You can view the content of the three bills, as well as their individual statuses, at the following three links:
http://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB2175
http://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB2530
http://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB3177“Oregon consumers have the right to know whether or not the food they purchase was produced using genetic engineering,” states the website OregonRightToKnow.org. “Genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences. Manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not always predictable or controllable, and they can lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.”
GMOs destroy health, and people want to know where, when they are being used in the food supply
The Oregon House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources recently heard testimony on the three bills. And supporters of GMO labeling throughout the state have been busy spreading the word about the lack of proper GMO safety testing, and the fact that GMOs have been linked to causing organ damage, gastrointestinal problems, allergies, and even cancer.The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit public interest and environmental advocacy group, saysGMO labeling legislation has been proposed in nearly half of all states. And even though a single one has yet to pass, awareness about the presence of GMOs throughout the food supply is growing, and individuals everywhere are saying “Enough!” to all the political gerrymandering being prompted by the biotechnology industry.
“The profit-driven motives to prohibit GMO labeling are reprehensible and represent an egregious indictment of the current health care system,” said Dr. Mary Zesiewicz, a board-certified psychiatrist, to state lawmakers in Colorado during a recent hearing. During her testimony, Dr. Zesiewicz explained that she has “seen an alarming increase in chronic health conditions” at her practice, many of which appear to be linked to GMO consumption.
Sources for this article include:
Farmer's Fight With Monsanto Reaches The Supreme Court
This week, the Supreme Court will take up a classic David-and-Goliath case. On one side, there’s a 75-year-old farmer in Indiana named Vernon Hugh Bowman; on the other, the agribusiness giant Monsanto.
The farmer is fighting the long reach of Monsanto’s patents on seeds — but he’s up against more than just Monsanto. The biotech and computer software industries are taking Monsanto’s side.
Bowman also is battling a historic shift that’s transformed the nation’s seed business over the past 20 years.
Despite all that, Bowman seems remarkably cheerful about his situation. “Confrontation does not take a toll on me!” he says. “You and me can argue about the Bible; we can argue about religion. I’ll pound my fist and we can argue all day, and I won’t lose a bit of sleep at night!”
Bowman is leaning back in an easy chair, where he says he also sleeps at night. He lives alone in a modest white frame house outside the small town of Sandborn, in southwestern Indiana.
Out back, there’s an array of old farm equipment collected during decades of growing corn and soybeans.
Bowman is wearing a Monsanto hat. It’s probably an ironic gesture, but in fact, he’s been a pleased and loyal customer of the company’s seeds. He thinks the genes that Monsanto inserted into soybeans are just great. They let soybeans survive the country’s most popular weedkiller: glyphosate, also known as Roundup. He can spray that one chemical to get rid of the weeds without harming his crop.
“It made things so much simpler and better. No question about that,” he says.
Bowman uses these “Roundup Ready” soybeans for his main crop, which he plants in the spring, and he signs a standard agreement not to save any of his harvest and replant it the next year. Monsanto demands exclusive rights to supply that seed.
Those late-season soybeans are risky. The yield is smaller. Bowman decided that for this crop, he didn’t want to pay top dollar for Monsanto’s seed. “What I wanted was a cheap source of seed,” he says.
But here’s where Bowman got into trouble: He also likes to plant a second crop of soybeans, later in the year, in fields where he just harvested wheat.
Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. “They made sure they didn’t sell it as seed. Their ticket said, ‘Outbound grain,” says Bowman.
He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene in them, because that’s mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn’t think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto’s seed business. “I couldn’t imagine that they’d give a rat’s behind,” he snorts.
Bowman told his neighbors what he was doing. It turned out that Monsanto did, in fact, care.
“He wanted to use our technology without paying for it,” says David Snively, Monsanto’s general counsel.
Monsanto took Bowman to court, and Bowman was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000 for infringing the company’s patent.
Bowman appealed. To the surprise of many, the highest court in the land agreed to hear his case. “I’m not a-gonna give in! Because I think I’ve done nothing wrong!” says Bowman.
His lawyers, who are representing him for free, have come up with a legal argument for why he did nothing wrong. If they succeed in persuading the court, it could pull the rug out from under Monsanto, and some other industries, too.
Bowman’s lawyer, Mark Walters from the firm of Frommer Lawrence and Haug, says there’s a very old principle in patent law: If you buy something that’s covered by a patent — let’s say it’s a cell phone — you own it, outright. “You’re allowed to put it on Craigslist and sell it, you’re allowed to use it for your ‘ordinary pursuits of life’ is the quote from some of the old cases that we’re relying on.”
It’s a valuable principle, Walters says. “Imagine how commerce would work if patents owners could come out of nowhere and surprise purchasers and tell them, ‘Oh, you need to pay me a royalty, because I own a patent on this thing that you just bought.’”
So according to this principle of “patent exhaustion,” Bowman bought that seed and can do with it what he wants. Patent holders have no right to stop him.
Monsanto’s David Snively, for his part, says this argument completely misses the point. Yes, we can buy an iPhone and do whatever we want with it, “but we’re not going to go out and make copies of the iPhone and put Apple out of business,” he says.
That’s what Bowman did, says Snively. When he planted this patented seed, he made copies of it.
In fact, he says, if farmers were allowed to do this with patented seeds, the patents would be worthless.
A number of industry organizations have come to Monsanto’s defense, including theBiotechnology Industry Organization.
Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel at BIO, says many biotech products are a lot like seeds. “They are easily replicated. They are difficult to make, but once created they are relatively easy to reproduce.” The same is true of computer software.
That’s one reason why Monsanto’s patents and lawsuits against farmers have stirred up so much anger and received so much attention.
But these are new technologies. Farmers’ seeds are old; they’re the original self-replicating technology, and for centuries, nobody tried to claim them as intellectual property.
What’s less well known, however, is that the practice of patenting seeds has moved far beyond Monsanto and other biotech companies.
It’s standard practice now even among small companies likeGreat Heart Seed, in Paris, Ill.
Great Heart Seed’s warehouse is filled to the rafters with white bags of soybean seed. The company sells 45 different varieties in all. Some grow better in the south, others in the north. Most have Monsanto’s Roundup resistance genes, while others do not.
Yet all of these varieties are patented. “Nearly everything out there has a patent on it now,” says Nels Kasey, one of the Great Heart’s owners.
Twenty years ago, that wasn’t the case. Many seed dealers sold “public” varieties that came from breeders at universities like Iowa State or Purdue.
Today, most new varieties come from private companies, and even universities acquire patents on most of the varieties that they do release.
Farmers aren’t supposed to save and replant those seeds, either.
Kasey says, the new system gives soybean breeders and seed companies more profits, and a stronger incentive to create and sell even better plant varieties. “I’m really proud of the varieties that we have today. When I started in this company, you had a handful of varieties. Today, there’s more money in it, more profit in it, so I can support 45 lines,” he says.
Those seeds, though, are also more expensive. Soybean seeds have tripled in price over the past 20 years. And a farmer like Bowman who just wants some cheap, generic seeds can’t easily find them.
Bowman can see towering bins filled with soybeans all around southwestern Indiana, but according to the seed companies, he can’t plant any of them.
In fact, after Monsanto took Bowman to court, his search for unrestricted seeds took him all the way to Ohio, one of the very few places in the country where the state still distributes non-patented soybean varieties.
Bowman acquired some of that seed — a variety called Dennison — and grew it last year. He saved part of his harvest. Those soybeans are now sitting in an old combine in a shed behind his house.
If the Supreme Court rules against him, Bowman can still use those beans for seed this year.
‘Long-term food monopoly’ if Supreme Court favors Monsanto
Bert Foer of the American Antitrust Institute warned Tuesday of a “long-term food monopoly” if the Supreme Court sided with agricultural giant Monsanto in a patent dispute.
“If I were writing the laws I would put some limitations on the types of conditions that can be placed on an initial sale,” he said on PBS Newshour. “I would say, after the initial sale you are subject to any licenses and contracts, and those can be reviewed by courts under such laws as the anti-trust laws and we can get some sort of a balance in the public interest.”
“Whereas, if you say it is only subject to patent infringement, you’re putting all the cards with the patentee and very few with the consumers or with all the other parties in the economic who are going to be effected.”
Foer remarked that society was increasingly dependent on patented technologies and the law was not keeping pace with the changes.
Under current patent law, once someone purchases an item they can use it as they wish and even sell it. However, they are prohibited from copying or replicating it. Due to this, Monsanto has required farmers to purchase brand new seeds every year rather than simply replanting seeds from their crops.
Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer, was sued by Monsanto for purchasing its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed from a grain elevator. Monsanto said Bowman violated the firm’s patent rights by replanting the seeds rather than purchasing new seeds from the company. Bowman appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that farming was not equivalent of making copies of the seeds.
The Associated Press reported that the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of Bowman’s arguments on Tuesday. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal echoed that observation on PBS, but also noted that Justices Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan were sympathetic to some of the farmer’s claims.
Indiana soybean farmer sees Monsanto lawsuit reach US supreme court
As David versus Goliath battles go it is hard to imagine a more uneven fight than the one about to play out in front of the US supreme court between Vernon Hugh Bowman and Monsanto.
On the one side is Bowman, a single 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer who is still tending the same acres of land as his father before him in rural south-western Indiana. On the other is a gigantic multibillion dollar agricultural business famed for its zealous protection of its commercial rights.
Not that Bowman sees it that way. “I really don’t consider it as David and Goliath. I don’t think of it in those terms. I think of it in terms of right and wrong,” Bowman told The Guardian in an interview.
Either way, in the next few weeks Bowman and Monsanto’s opposing legal teams will face off in front of America’s most powerful legal body, weighing in on a case that deals with one of the most fundamental questions of modern industrial farming: who controls the rights to the seeds planted in the ground.
The legal saga revolves around Monsanto’s aggressive protection of its soybean known as Roundup Ready, which have been genetically engineered to be resistant to its Roundup herbicide or its generic equivalents. When Bowman – or thousands of other farmers just like him – plant Monsanto’s seeds in the ground they are obliged to only harvest the resulting crop, not keep any of it back for planting the next year. So each season, the farmer has to buy new Monsanto seeds to plant.
However, farmers are able to buy excess soybeans from local grain elevators, many of which are likely to be Roundup Ready due to the huge dominance Monsanto has in the market. Indeed in Indiana it is believed more than 90% of soybeans for sale as “commodity seeds” could be such beans, each containing the genes Monsanto developed.
Bowman, who has farmed the same stretch of land for most of the past four decades and grew up on a farm, ended up on Monsanto’s radar for using such seeds – bought from a local grain elevator, rather than Monsanto – for year after year and replanting part of each crop. He did not do so for his main crop of soybeans, but rather for a smaller “second late season planting” usually planted on a field that had just been harvested for wheat. “We have always had the right to go to an elevator, buy some ‘junk grain’ and use it for seed if you desire,” Bowman said.
To put it mildly, Monsanto disagrees. The firm insists that it maintains patent rights on its genetically modified seeds even if sold by a third party with no restrictions put on its use – even if the seeds are actually only descendants of the original Monsanto seeds. To that end it sued Bowman, eventually winning a legal settlement of some $84,456 (£53,500) against him for infringing the firm’s patent rights. Monsanto says that if it allowed Bowman to keep replanting his seeds it would undermine its business model, endangering the expensive research that it uses to produce advanced agricultural products.
News to Me: Safety Group Blows Lid On ‘Secret Virus’ Hidden In GMO Crops
Anthony Gucciardi
Prison Planet.com
Feb 7, 2013
Yet another disturbing reason has emerged as to why you should be avoiding health-devastating genetically modified organisms, and it may be one of the most concerning yet. We know that GMO consumption has been linked to a host of serious conditions, but one thing we are not so sure about is the recent discovery of a hidden viral gene deep within genetically modified crops.
For years, GMOs have been consumed knowingly and unknowingly around the globe, with Monsanto and the United States government claiming that the altered franken crops are perfectly safe despite very limited (or virtually none in some cases) initial testing and scientists speaking out against the dangers. One such danger that has actually not been spoken about has been revealed in a recent report by a safety watchdog group known as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Another Dirty Secret of Monsanto
In the EFSA report, which can be read online, you can find (within the scientific wording) that researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations. NK603 maize, of course, was also recently linked to the development of mass tumors in rats.
According to Independent Science News, Gene VI also inhibits RNA silencing. As you may know, RNA silencing has been pinpointed as vital for the proper functioning of gene expression when it comes to RNA. Perhaps more topically, it is a defense mechanism against viruses in plants and animals alike. On the contrary, many viruses have developed genes that disable this protective process. Independent Science News reports that the Gene VI is one such gene.
Overall, there is a degree of knowledge on Gene VI. What we do know going by information within the report is that the gene:
- Helps to assemble virus particles
- Inhibits the natural defense of the cellular system
- Produces proteins that are potentially problematic
- Makes plants susceptible to bacterial pathogens
All of which are very significant effects that should be studied in depth by an independent team of scientists after GMO products are taken off the market pending further research on the entire array of associated diseases. And that does not even include the effects we are unaware of.
This is yet another incident in which Monsanto and other biotech companies are getting away with an offense against the citizens of the world with (most likely) no action taken by the United States government. What we have seen, however, is nations like Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Peru taking a stand against Monsanto in direct opposition to their disregard for public safety. Russia, in fact, banned Monsanto’s GMO corn variety after it was linked to mass tumors in rats.
As more and more dirty secrets come out from the GMO industry at large, it gives further reason and more support to remove GMOs as a whole from the food supply.
This post originally appeared at Natural Society

Important to note, this report says, is that Syngenta, along with bio-tech giants Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and DuPont, now 
