Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in dispute over genetically engineered seeds

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Agence France-Presse

Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in dispute over genetically engineered seeds
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:51 EST

The US Supreme Court Wednesday refused to hear an appeal seeking to prevent Monsanto from suing farmers who inadvertently grew crops contaminated by its genetically engineered seed.

It was the second time the top US court has sided with the American agro-giant in its running fight with farmers over seed patent rights, after a ruling in its favor in a May 2013 case involving an Indiana farmer.

In the latest case, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association had asked that Monsanto agree not to sue farmers if they inadvertently grew plants containing traits of patented genetically engineered seed.

In rejecting the suit without comment, the Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court ruling that the group’s challenge was unwarranted because Monsanto had already given binding assurances it would not sue when only trace amounts of its genetically modified seed were involved.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/15/supreme-court-sides-with-monsanto-in-dispute-over-genetically-engineered-seeds/

[EC]

1. Pretty soon farmers are going to just sell out to avoid these

sort of problems. These seeds are spread by birds or whatever and then the farmer gets sued, that's F'ed up.

[proverbialwisdom]

2. Learned a new acronym today: OSGATA

[img][/img]

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Seems to me

that the the better analogy is the paint company shows up and demands that the neighbor buy the amount of paint needed to fully paint the house.

[groundloop]

3. MAYBE not a big deal.... "Monsanto had already given binding assurances it would not sue"

I agree I'd have liked to see this go through, but if Monsanto has signed agreements not to sue over trace amounts of genetic material it seems that innocent farmers should be protected from being sued by the bastards over something they have no control over. In that Indiana case the guy had noticed that some of his crop was roundup resistant, harvested that and used the seed from just that portion to re-plant and produce more seed (hardly an innocent mix-up). In general I hate the crap Monsanto has been pulling, but they at least had a bone of contention with that case.

[George II]

4. The devil is in the details...

.....lost in the frenzy, from the article:

"the group’s challenge was unwarranted because Monsanto had already given binding assurances it would not sue when only trace amounts of its genetically modified seed were involved"

The court wasn't ruling "in favor" of Monsanto, but that the suit was unwarranted and unnecessary.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Depends on the meaning of the word

"trace".

Whatever it is, trace+1 equals lawsuit.

[George II]

9. It could very likely be the same word that OSGATA used in their lawsuit

[another_liberal]

7. Let me guess . . .

It was a five-to-four decision, right?

[Berlum]

8. "Eat our occulted mutant GMO crud, and shut up. Sneer." - Mutant Scientific Materialists, Inc. (R)

[Jack Rabbit]

10. I still want to know what it costs Monsanto to get rulings like this

Some judges must be getting rich.

[geardaddy]

11. Of course they did.

Clarence Thomas is a former Monsatan employee.