Deal with the Devil: Monsanto Headed to Supreme Court in Case Against its Own Growers
The case of Vernon Bowman v Monsanto is headed to the Supreme Court, a case in which Monsanto is fighting against one of its own GMO farmers. Mr. Bowman is a farmer from Indiana who grows soybeans, and has challenged the biotech giant over its official agreement. Bowman started buying Monsanto’s GMO soybeans in 1999 and signed the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement (MTSA), which is detailed below. Bowman adhered to the MTSA for these seed purchases and did not save the seeds for replanting in subsequent years, per the contract.
However, in 2007 Bowman bought some seeds from a grain elevator that contained Monsanto’s GMO soy seeds in the mixture that he used for a late-season second planting. Bowman did save and replant the Monsanto GMO seeds from this second generation batch.
Monsanto does authorize growers to sell their second-generation seed to grain elevators as a commodity and does not require restrictions on grain elevators’ subsequent sales of that seed.
From Monsanto’s Technology Stewardship Agreement:
GROWER AGREES:
• To plant and/or clean Seed for Seed production, if and only if, Grower has entered into a valid, written Seed production agreement with a Seed company that is licensed by Monsanto to produce Seed. Grower must either physically deliver to that licensed Seed company or must sell for non-seed purposes or use for non-seed purposes all of the Seed produced pursuant to a Seed production agreement. Grower may not plant and may not transfer to others for planting any Seed that the Grower has produced containing patented Monsanto Technologies for crop breeding, research, or generation of herbicide registration data.
Despite Monsanto allowing seed to be sold to grain elevators and restriction-free sales of those seeds by the grain elevators, a lower court ruled that growers who buy second generation seeds and plant them infringe on Monsanto’s patent when new seeds self-replicate, creating new genetic material, seeds and plants.
Bowman contends that Monsanto’s patent is exhausted after seeds have been sold to a grain elevator and that it is foreseeable and natural that seeds would be used for their intended purpose of planting.
If Bowman wins, Monsanto will suffer an economic blow because farmers will be able to buy cheaper second generation GMO seeds that they can save and re-plant. If Monsanto wins, ‘patent exhaustion’ legal definitions and rulings will be turned on their head and will have to be modified for self-replicating products.
Either way it works out, the proliferation of GMO crops will likely increase — a major problem from the citizens of the world. That is why it is essential that we continue to push for Prop 37, the GMO labeling bill centered in California. Meanwhile, this Supreme Court case is an open display in how Monsanto will even turn on its own growers for profits.
CONNECT













9 comments on "Deal with the Devil: Monsanto Headed to Supreme Court in Case Against its Own Growers"
October 08, 2012 6:58pm
Ah, kevinfolta again (@9:55am, 10/8)
once again, manifesting a primary focus on tinkering with science being so sacrosanct that nothing should limit it.
Is it POSSIBLE in kevinfolta's mind that not ALL breeding and inventing must be protected by intellectual property rights upheld by court decisions?
Of course, we all know that even if kevinfolta agreed that was possible, k would not agree that Monsanto's GMO products were among the exceptions to the rule. I have never once yet read kevinfolta admit that there are any downsides to Monsanto's products, whether their past poisons such as dioxins, polychlorobenzenes, sacharrin, or any of the myriad of other substances they produced and sold and distributed throughout the world in mass quantities with US government special favor status, withholding knowledge of their toxicities, denying their dangers when confronted with evidence thereof, and settling liability claims in order to avoid admissions of guilt -- or whether their current abominations such as glyphosate and GMOs. Russia did not recently join the growing list of countries banning Monsanto's products, and Monsanto was not fined by other governments purely for PR purposes to satisfy what kevinfolta claims are ignorants of how science works -- the weight of solid evidence is piling up that shows kevinfolta's faith in the applications of GMO science by mega-profit and monopoly-seeking corporations such as Monsanto are misplaced. And, I say, a danger to all life on the planet.
Again I challenge kevinfolta -- Has kevinfolta nothing to say about the downsides of Monsanto's promulgations? How can any allegedly objective analyzer speak of only upsides and yet ask to be seen as a credible voice?
October 08, 2012 7:06pm
He can't and he's not mycophile, but that is a great post. However, I wouldn't waste more time bickering with weasels who are here to do a job, and only pretend to be in dialogue.
October 08, 2012 5:52pm
Stephen Breyer recused himself in a Monsanto case a few years back due to a conflict of interest and Clarance Thomas should have done the same.
These two should recuse for this case too.
http://iowaindependent.com/32870/justice-with-past-monsanto-ties-should-...
October 08, 2012 10:34am
Monsanto owns the corporatist Supreme kourt.
In fact, Monsanto's corporate lawyer Clarence Thomas is a US Supreme kouurt "justus".
October 08, 2012 10:22am
That does squat for growers who choose not to plant GM seed and then find their crops contaminated by genetic drift from GM crops and dragged into court by bio-tech companies.
Gainesville, FL
October 08, 2012 9:55am
My concern is how eroding IP rights will affect plant breeders. Breeders rely on plant variety protection to limit propagation and sale of their materials without royalties to the inventor. Plant breeding (and biotech) is a long process that takes a decade to get even fast varieties to market. Should they have to give it away?
Fruit crop breeders that make new citrus or apple varieties spend years and millions of dollars bringing a plant to market. Seriously, it costs that much to maintain breeding populations, orchards, testing, fuel, employees, pest management, etc. Biotech crops take years and millions of dollars to navigate the regulatory process.
Let's support judicial decisions that protect breeders and inventors and encourage investment in innovation. And if a farmer does not like the agreement, don't buy MOnsanto products and don't sign the agreement. That's the easiest solution.
October 08, 2012 6:05pm
The first Monsanto story was this GMO stuff was not supposed to produce viable seeds. Oops. Then they found out that they did and they had to put a stop to using seeds. They did that, well pretty much. Then the pollen drift was not supposed to pollenate non-gmo seeds. Oops again. Now farmers are held responsible for what their neighbours plant and the prevailing winds.
Monsanto (or anyone for that matter) should NOT be able to patent living things. The process to derive said living thing should be able to be patented and licensed as the developer sees fit. If the living thing can reproduce, then the process developer no longer has any rights to it. There does need to be a balance to this check...you cannot sell the offspring except to buyers approved by the process owner so they can ensure safety, quality, and that the new buyers are getting the real deal.
October 08, 2012 10:23pm
"Self Replicating Products" - this terminology is sickening, as is Monsanto's disregard for all that came before their experiments in genetic mutilation.
We're talking about life here. The Law of Nature, or maybe just common sense says a company cannot pretend to 'own' the mechanism of life - and therefore 'own' the offspring of living things. It seems Monsanto's thinking would be more at home in the days of slavery, not the 21st century.
October 08, 2012 1:36pm
What planet do you live on, Kevinfolta? Or rather, what planet WILL you live on?