Not Monsanto's Fault! Ever.

[marmar]

from Food First:




Not Monsanto's Fault! Ever.
Posted March 2nd, 2011 by admin

By Eric Holt-Giménez, March 2, 2011


Monsanto has an interesting clause in its seed contract. The Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement has a waiver that shifts all liability from any incidental, direct, indirect consequences from its seeds from the company to the farmer.

Apparently, Monsanto is so sure that their seeds are problem-free that they refuse to take responsibility for them...

Want to plant Monsanto's GMO seeds? Here is your cross to bear:

GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3315

[no_hypocrisy]

1. If a plaintiff can prove gross liability, the exculpation clause that exonerates

and protects Monsanto will be not recognized by a court. The question is whether gross liability with attendant damages can be proved.

[ixion]

2. Monsanto: Destroying the seed supply one seed at a time.

Thanks a pantload, ass clowns. :grr:

[Buzz Clik]

4. They only control their own seeds.

[ixion]

13. Well, no, they don't. That is precisely the problem with GM seed

it spreads. And you know what? Monsanto claims they own anything that happens to cross breed with their patented seed.

[Buzz Clik]

3. There are alternatives. Farmers can get seed from other sources.

[SpiralHawk]

6. and then as Monsanto's mutant crap pollen drifts into their clean fields

they can and will be sued by Monsanto for 'stealing' their mutant plant-like facsimile product.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Evil is as evil does.

Part of the problem is the farmers trying to beat the system by holding back some of their seed for planting the next year. If they refrained from doing that (which is illegal), then they'd avoid the problem.

[Sal Minella]

8. "Holding seed back for planting" is a thought that occurred to

humans shortly after "I think I'll try walking on my hind legs."

Purchased seed should become the property of the farmer doing the purchasing.
That's what the idea of "purchasing" is all about, innit???
When I buy something, it's mine, right???

When farmers are prosecuted for "trying to beat the system" by saving seed, it's the system that's completely fucked up, imho.

Monsanto is a plague on the face of the earth, and we are slowly being forced to accept their egregious practices as "just another way of doing bidniss."

[Buzz Clik]

9. "Purchased seed should become the property of the farmer doing the purchasing." No.

You don't own the copyright to DVDs or CDs that you buy. You get the one copy.

Ditto seeds.

Monsanto, and even smaller seed companies, spend millions of dollars developing varieties. Buying 20 pounds of seeds or 1000 pounds or buying just a single seed does not give you the right to steal that research. It's the law, and there are thousands of existing, similar laws in every walk of life.

Have you ever looked at DU's policy of cutting and pasting text from another website? Same deal.

[Sal Minella]

10. When DVDs and CDs are capable of reproducing themselves,

I may accept your bizarre analogy. Until then, no.

The crop produced from the farmer's labor should belong to the farmer.
If Monsanto doesn't want people using their seeds, they shouldn't "sell" them at all.

[Buzz Clik]

11. I really don't care if you accept it or not. Millions of people download songs illegally...

... and it's still illegal even if those who are stealing the music have a more objection to paying.

It's the law, and the same law that covers all patented materials. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

[Sal Minella]

12. My point is (I will speak slowly and distinctly here) that

living organisms should not be "Patented Materials."

Monsanto is trying to patent (or already has patented) corn grown by indigenous peoples for eons.

And, quite frankly, I don't much care what you think, either.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Fine. I'd speak slowly and distinctly for you, but it clearly won't make a difference.

It's the law. Blame Monsanto if you want, but you'd be better served changing the laws. All of them.

[Sal Minella]

15. So, are you pretending that Monsanto isn't the author

of those laws?

The genetically-mutilated organism patent laws are being written by the companies and rubber-stamped by their hirelings in Congress.

And if I had anywhere near the financial resources Monsanto has, I would be out there changing those laws, believe me.

[bettyellen]

17. you didn;t know Monsanto had those laws written for them?

[SpiralHawk]

16. + 1,000

You got it...This is scientific materialism (R) to the nth degree -- and it sucks.

[xchrom]

5. recommend