The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, closing the door on a patent case that has pitted a smalltime farmer from Indiana against a titan of the agriculture industry.
The high court said early Monday that 75-year-old farmer Vernon Bowman of Indiana violated Monsanto’s patent rights when he purchased a mix of seeds from a grain elevator that he later planted on his Midwest farm. That mix included patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds manufactured by Monsanto that are sold under license because they can hold up against their namesake, a nasty pesticide regularly used on farms.
Bowman argued that he could do whatever he wanted with the Roundup Ready seeds since he obtained them rightfully from a grain elevator and the terms of Monsanto’s licensing agreement under the patent did not apply to him. Under Monsanto’s terms, Roundup Ready seeds can only be harvested once and must not be saved or reused.
It would seem that the farmer has a counter claim against the elevator owner for selling him the copyrighted seed, unless of course each seed was marked with the Monsanto logo!
energy-village wrote:I bought my usual Morrisons organic coffee today (the only organic one on a whole bay of coffees). There is a Soil Association organic logo on the side. But this time I read the small print: 'Only approved fertilizers and pesticides'. Exactly what is 'approved' I'm not clear.
I went to the Soil Association website and it says:
"For foods to be labelled as organic, at least 95% of the ingredients must come from organically produced plants and animals. Any food product sold as 'organic' falls under the EU regulations 834/2007 and 889/2008."
So up to 5% can be non organic? gm?
Organically approved pesticides include biological controls such as nematodes or baccilus thurigensis. Approved fertilisers include e.g. one-off mineral supplements to lower the pH of the soil, or the use of potash from woodfires. The 5% non-organic rule recognises the difficulties in processing foodstuffs. Most organic food is processed in facilities that also process conventional foods. Although there are strict regulations around cleaning the equipment before organic foods go down the same line, it's still possible for mixing to occur. A 100% rule would have meant that one grain of conventional wheat mixed into a tonne of organic wheat in a mill would make the organic wheat "conventional".
energy-village wrote:I bought my usual Morrisons organic coffee today (the only organic one on a whole bay of coffees). There is a Soil Association organic logo on the side. But this time I read the small print: 'Only approved fertilizers and pesticides'. Exactly what is 'approved' I'm not clear.
I went to the Soil Association website and it says:
"For foods to be labelled as organic, at least 95% of the ingredients must come from organically produced plants and animals. Any food product sold as 'organic' falls under the EU regulations 834/2007 and 889/2008."
So up to 5% can be non organic? gm?
Organically approved pesticides include biological controls such as nematodes or baccilus thurigensis. Approved fertilisers include e.g. one-off mineral supplements to lower the pH of the soil, or the use of potash from woodfires. The 5% non-organic rule recognises the difficulties in processing foodstuffs. Most organic food is processed in facilities that also process conventional foods. Although there are strict regulations around cleaning the equipment before organic foods go down the same line, it's still possible for mixing to occur. A 100% rule would have meant that one grain of conventional wheat mixed into a tonne of organic wheat in a mill would make the organic wheat "conventional".
Nevertheless, 1 grain of non organic wheat in a tonne of organic wheat is a hell of a long way from 5%. That's one mouthful in twenty.
That said, 5% is a high number, bumped up after pressure from the aggro-industry.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:That said, 5% is a high number, bumped up after pressure from the aggro-industry.
I agree. 5% is, to my mind, unacceptably and avoidably large. Not that I can afford to eat organic for the most part anyway, but the principle stands. If I was buying organic, I'd be pretty pissed to find out that one in twenty mouthfuls was not from where I was led to believe it came from.
emordnilap wrote:That said, 5% is a high number, bumped up after pressure from the aggro-industry.
I agree. 5% is, to my mind, unacceptably and avoidably large. Not that I can afford to eat organic for the most part anyway, but the principle stands. If I was buying organic, I'd be pretty pissed to find out that one in twenty mouthfuls was not from where I was led to believe it came from.
May not have been <pedant>
Which, Steve, goes to point up how we should be more aware of what/who is handling our food. Some firms will hold higher ethical standards than others and it is one's duty to try to know which and hold others to account.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:That said, 5% is a high number, bumped up after pressure from the aggro-industry.
Almost certainly pushed up by the processors who were concerned that they couldn't get all the conventional gear out of the line, and the organic growers who were concerned that if the regulations were too stringent, processors would refuse to handle their produce.
Still, I'd rather 19 mouthfuls out of 20 were organic than conventional.
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
I'm not sure that the agrochemicals industry should be described as 'conventional'. Most farming since the start of the neolithic (which defines the start of agriculture) has been organic so that ought to be regarded as 'conventional' and the use of pesticides an aberration from the norm.
kenneal - lagger wrote:It would seem that the farmer has a counter claim against the elevator owner for selling him the copyrighted seed, unless of course each seed was marked with the Monsanto logo!
It'll happen. Nano-tech and all that!
ETA; But, with such clear-cut definition of ownership, how would the lawyers make their money?
I'm not sure that the agrochemicals industry should be described as 'conventional'. Most farming since the start of the neolithic (which defines the start of agriculture) has been organic so that ought to be regarded as 'conventional' and the use of pesticides an aberration from the norm.
Well, I agree with you there, but language is a living being, and at the moment, the tag "conventional" is applied to the wrong thing. Hopefully it will change one day. I usually refer to "chemical" farming, although "farming" could usefully be in quotation marks too.
I'm not sure that the agrochemicals industry should be described as 'conventional'. Most farming since the start of the neolithic (which defines the start of agriculture) has been organic so that ought to be regarded as 'conventional' and the use of pesticides an aberration from the norm.
Yes. My stance exactly.
We have conventional farming plus a toxic food industry.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
<pedant>
