Bowman vs. Monsanto: Upheld.

0 thoughts on “Bowman vs. Monsanto: Upheld.”

    1. I know, right? There’s still a couple more rulings in patented seeds to come – we will see how they will add to this opinion, but it doesn’t look good for now.

      1. Thank you for digesting these stories and showing them to us. I’m one of many who’ve been following Bowman vs Monsanto but without being a legal expert, it can be confusing.

        1. Haha I’m definitely no legal expert myself either, so take anything I say with caution 😉 But it’s true that these issues are ridiculously complex and thereby might scare off people, which is too bad since these decisions affect us in one way or another.

  1. I agree that the fact that the seeds are GMO are what caused the problem in the first place- if we were using seeds that were more diverse (genetically), it would be impossible to trace the origin of a particular seed to a particular person/company. Not only would people not be able to sue each other, we’d be also growing healthier food. GMO food is unnatural- even if there aren’t a lot of studies on its safety, I believe that we will eventually come to realize that they are dangerous in some way.

  2. Reblogged this on Science on the Land and commented:
    argylesock says… There’s legal wrangling over genetically modified (GM) crops. One big issue is: ‘Who Owns the Seeds?’ Here’s the outcome of a test case about that very question. Vernon Bowman is a farmer who saved seed and grew beans from it. Because he did this terrible thing to poor little Monsanto (the patent owner) he’s been convicted and ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000. My fellow blogger Janina at Food (Policy) for Thought sums up this story: ‘But I personally feel that the Court is letting itself off the hook fairly easily, and setting a dangerous precedent. Supreme Court rulings make case law, and are frequently cited to back up legal arguments. If this opinion, the fact that growing plants from seeds can be unlawful if that seed had, at some point in the past, had a patent attached to it, becomes prevalent, any farmer could be dragged in front of the court and be accused of wittingly or unwittingly replicating patented material. The only way to avoid legal prosecution then would be to prove beyond a doubt that you weren’t aware of the patent or that that crop that grew on your field (which might, by design, be much more resilient than your own crops and replace them) was growing “outside [your] control” – and how do you prove that? This is the main reason I am very critical of GMOs – not foremost the fact that they have been genetically modified, but the fact that they give a few select corporations so much power over our food system.’

  3. There is always heated discussion on the health/environmental aspects of GM crops but like you, I would love to see more discussion on the concentration of economic and financial power with a few corporations. That is why we need biotechnology to be sourced from different institutions: universities, research institutes etc. but here is the dilemma: given the long and arduous process of developing and bringing seeds to the market only institutions with deep funds can stay in the game that long, hence the dominance of a few names. If the intense opposition was reduced and basic scientific research was accepted then verifying the safety for cultivation and consumption would be easier, cheaper, faster and we could benefit more from this technology. Case in point is golden rice (which incidentally as not developed by a corporation) still is not available to us despite the potential health benefits that many could have gained from consuming this fortified rice variety.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *