Quote:
Originally Posted by carve
Hasn't happened, although many groups have preemptively tried to sue Monsanto claiming it will. You can't sue before there are damages though.
Farmers traditionally generally buy new seed every year. If they want to grow their own, then start with seed-stock with a company that allows you to save some seeds for next year. No problem. Nobody is forced to buy from Monsanto, but when you do you sign a contract to not re-use them. They only sue when this contract is violated.
Don't get me started on subsidies. They're awful. Facism, and they also help with the Iowa caucus. We're not talking new tech here though. It's mature. What kinks?
I agree with the approach of non-GMO foods just labeling their stuff "non-GMO". Problem solved without forcing anybody to do anything. They resis labeling their stuff GMO because of public ignorance. Just being forced to label it makes it sound like a warning...like it's toxic, and it isn't. That said...trying to use legal force to prevent the non-GMO products from labeling is just as bad if not worse than forcing GMO products from labeling. May even be a 1st amendment violation.
|
In the case Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, it was ruled that Monsanto does have the rights to seed use in the event of accidental cross pollination.
"[92] Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
The kinks I'm talking about aren't about the technology. I think the technology is great. The problems are the current food production, political, and legal systems.
Refusing to label doesn't fix public ignorance, and only continues to generate public mistrust. It falls right into the anti-GMO campaign - that the industry has something to hide about GMOs and doesn't want people to know. Labeling doesn't have to automatically mean it's toxic. There's lots of great science backed information about GMOs you could put on the label, and I think it will help quell the current fear and hysteria. I'm totally ok with farmers using Monsanto seeds because its cheaper and more productive, but I do believe that consumers have the right to know what's in their food, not just producers. They should be told that GMOs are in the food supply but they're safe and sustainable from what we know. Then it's up to the free market to decide if it wants GMOs in its food supply. GMOs are useful. We shouldn't hide them. We need transparency.
Mark Lynas does a good job of saying what should be done.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/10/why...to-label-gmos/