Monsanto's Lawsuits Analysis

According to the article somewhere around 325,000 farmers purchase seeds each year under an agreement that “they will will not save and replant seeds produced from” Monsanto. With an agreement like this in place, the corporation feels the need to be sure that clients withhold their contracts. Monsanto sends out private investigators to essentially follow farmers, photographing them and watching everything that they do. If an investigator determines that a farmer is breaking contract, that farmer will have to pay a fine, or, in extreme cases, a lawsuit will be filed. However, according to the essay by Monsanto, there have been only “147 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 8 per year for the past 18 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.” They do this because when farmers replant, they no longer have a reason to purchase seeds, therefore costing the company money. Another reason that Monsanto uses such a practice is because the loss of that revenue hinders their ability to research and develop products that would help farmers. A

What do you understand from the movie about why Monsanto is able to sue farmers for something as basic as saving their own seeds? What is your response to this kind of corporate prosecution of farmers?

The use of Monsanto’s tactical format for approaching farmers who misuse their seeds is one that I find a little concerning. Monsanto has a policy that the farmers who purchase their seeds sign that they are not able to save their seeds or replant them for the next years crop. It is important for all industries to protect their patented product, but I am not sure preventing the farmer’s from using a product purchased in a previous year would damage their patent. The farmer has already purchased the seed from the supplier, so the seed is technically the owned product of the farmer who completed the purchase. If the farmer is not doing anything with the product that will manipulate how it is used or in a manner where the crop is produced,

When one company controls ninety-percent of a market, it is reasonable to open the doors to the possibility of a monopoly. This word is a board game to some, a boring econ principle to others, but a harsh reality for twenty-four million American farmers and their families. (Farmers Feed Us) Monsanto has taken control of the farming world and it is hitting farmers hard. The powerful company controls ninety-percent of the soybean market and much of other farming markers which are a lifeline for farmers across this country. It is clear to many that it is a monopoly, but nothing is being done to break up Monsanto. There is much controversy behind the issue on a political level and on what motifs there may be to keep the company together. Monsanto is hurting farmers by monopolizing the farming market and there are political ties behind the master plan to keep control.

I believe that if a company has a patent seed with a particular gene that shows up in a farmer’s crop should not be able to own that crop. There could be many different reasons why a particular gene shows up in a farmer’s crop. Many of which could not be there fault. For example, Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto for growing one of Monsanto’s seeds. But Percy never bought any seeds from Monsanto. As you can see Monsanto’s seeds must have blown into Percy’s field by accident and started growing. Furthermore, no it’s not a farmers fault that they have someone else’s patent gene in their crops so they shouldn’t have to have their crops taken away.

Monsanto is controlling the farmers and manipulating organic farmers to use their patented seeds and artificial growth hormone to increase production. As, Troy Roush, VP of American Corn Growers Association explains “In the case of Monsanto their control is so dominant, if you want to be in production agriculture, you’re going to be in bed with Monsanto (Food Inc 1:15:40-1:15-48). Monsanto should not have the right to control what the farmers can and cannot do. Monsanto has induced politician and the government to abdicate their responsibility to protect consumers through funding their campaign and heavy lobbying. As Michael Pollan clarifies “For the last 25 years, our government has been dominated by the industries that it was meant to be regulating” (1:17:07-1:17:13). The consumers and farmers should be the ones deciding and voting on the farming practices, not congress or large seed industries. I believe the farmers should reject to use Monsanto’s seeds and have the right to save, clean and reuse the seeds from their harvests. It should be unacceptable and illegal for the government to change ancient agricultural farming; hence we would have a healthy food chain. Government and congress should focus on the interest of consumers and farmers and not be conquered by large companies. The government needs to revisit the seed patenting law and sign an agreement of the

Monsanto is involved in a variety of ways,“The company produces the herbicide RoundUp, and also seeds whose genes have been engineered to survive RoundUp's active plant-killing ingredient. Now the vast majority of this country's soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola possess those engineered genes,”(Boyle). Initially, this seems quite innocent, however, there’s no telling what kind of chemicals are being introduced into the food supply in order to allow these plants to survive. Also, sugar and corn are contained within almost every non organic product Americans consume, which means virtually everyone is ingesting these potentially harmful chemicals. Monsanto’s RoundUp resistant seeds should seem to be a farmer’s best friend, but it’s not always so simple, “As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences,”(Barlett). Simply dogmatic in his manner, the mysterious Monsanto man would not take no for an answer, even though later in the article Mr. Rinehart states that he isn’t a farmer and they have the wrong guy. Commonly referred to as seed police, even gestapo or mafia, this elite force of Monsanto maniacs are lifeless and drone-like in the sense that they will stop at nothing in order to obtain a profit, and if it’s the wrong person they’ll still use scare tactics to weasel cash out of innocent civilians. Saying that Monsanto is heavily involved in the production and distribution of genetically modified crops and seeds is a massive understatement, to demonstrate this,“In 1996 when Monsanto introduced RoundUp Ready Soybeans, the company controlled only 2% of the U.S. soybean market. Now, over 90% of

Monsanto has a patent on the genetically engineered seed, and strictly limit farmers in how they use the see. Farmers are not allowed to harvest the seeds for future use, and must purchase new seeds each year. Most farmers feel that this gives Monsanto too much power and control. If farmers deter from the Monsanto policies they feel bullied by the investigators that come to the farm. Farmers have accused Monsanto of unethical practices in order to get the farmers to participate in their plan. Farmers have unknowingly replanted seed that occurred from cross pollination and have replanted the seed which is not allowed. In Bowman vs. Monsanto, the court upheld that the patent exhaustion does not apply to self-replicating technology. Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman for cross pollination and won. In this situation, secondary stakeholders were involved (Haugo, 2015). Government and regulatory entities are considered secondary stakeholders since they do not typically engage in transactions with a company and are not essential to their futures (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell,

Then the farmer winds settling out of court to keep from being bankrupt by Monsanto. Is Monsanto the seed enforce? Shame on Monsanto!!

Monsanto and other companies profit at the expense of hard working farmers across by disallowing seed saving and enforcing their patents with private investigators.

Monsanto had a legal patent for Roundup, which makes it impossible for other companies to create

Breaking News: Monsanto suing more farmers for planting seeds of past plants. Hearing these words I sigh, what has our world come to? What if there was an apocalyptic situation? How would we survive if all of our seeds couldn’t be reused? It seems as if Monsanto is trying to accomplish world domination, but is Monsanto the one at fault here or are there doing the right thing?

The seed police at Monsanto’s are in place to going after growers who reuse its seeds' technology. The seed police are in place to protect the investment of the company. Farmers have also criticized Monsanto for its aggressive efforts to identify unauthorized Roundup growers. In an attempt to crack down on seed piracy, Monsanto employs private investigators who conduct random farm audits and collect crop samples from the fields of alleged violators (Cross, 2000). To solidify its case against Schmeiser, Monsanto investigators entered the farmer's fields without his consent and collected crop samples without his permission. Monsanto’s is no stranger to the legal system. Most of their legal troubles deal with bribery and patents. Monsanto was

Further, Cities worldwide saw the second annual “March Against Monsanto”, protesting gathered to protest that organic crops were being polluted by GM Pollen blown in on the wind. Monsanto sued the organic farmers for intellectual-property

Bayer and Monsanto recently announced the fourth proposed merger between agribusiness giants within the past year. However, despite their potential economic success, this deal may prove to be harmful to consumers. In response to overproduction, forcing farmers to reduce spending on seeds, large agribusinesses are merging to cut costs. In turn, each merger potentially raises the cost of seed for farmers, ensuring further production at a loss. Despite these businesses’ claims to merge for the purpose of diversifying and increasing growth and research capabilities, lawmakers are involved due to potential violations of anti-trust laws.