Well, I guess the question is, "what's to be done about it?". The only way I can see for farmers to not get hurt by leaving the Monsanto empire would be to all leave together, thereby all keeping to the same relative crop yields.  Can that happen? I suspect not, because I don't see the leadership in the farming community to pull off something like that.  

What's truly scary is the data about 70% of the US food being contaminated with genetically modified ingredients.  It's not so much what science says about whether they think it's going to hurt you, it's about knowledge and choice.  We deserve to know what's in our food and choose based on that knowledge.  The government, I think, is turning a blind eye to the needs of its citizens in this case.  It shouldn't be up to them to decide for us what's important for us to know and what's not.  But then, it seems pretty clear that large parts of our government are being subverted by special interests, and have been for some time.

I'm sure there are a huge number of bloggers here with better knowledge of the law than me (probably fairly few with less actually), but I think Tom Philpott's comment about trust regulations seems important.  Can someone point to conditions for such a suit that are NOT met in this instance?

A possible solution through anti-trust litigation would be to separate the company that sells seeds and owns genetic patents from the company that sells chemicals... should be an easy enough delineation to make.  It's not clear what the outcome would be... the seed company might make seeds tolerant of other company's herbicides...  or seeds that generate herbicide in their own metabolic processes.

Percy Schmeiser is an organic farmer in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and was sued by Monsanto for planting GM canola on his fields. He did not plant them, the seeds drifted onto his property and actually contaminated his organic crops, but Monsanto sued anyway and WON! That was outrageous Mr. Schmeiser continues his appeals, but the outcome does not look very promising for him. If a company as big and powerful as Monsanto can win in court, not only do our patent laws need to be changed, but our court system as well. The little guys is usually the loser.

As I understand it Mssr. Schmeiser has switched gears and is suing Monsanto as they make it impossible for him to grow organic crops and is winning.  If anyone knows the current status please ammend this string!

The problem is the quality of judges in these cases. Any judge who was not in the hand of corporate interests and beholden to through a right-wing property rights ideology, would have long through out these cases?

Can you imagine the Supreme Court of the 1960s or 1970s upholding these cases?

Clearly, where there where cases of signed and infringed patents, then there should be punishment. But aren't many of these cases excessive? Understandably, these amounts are usually significantly reduced after the judgment, but still.

The part of the case history that seems ridiculous is that a farmer that gets some seeds blown into his/her property from a Monsanto-based neighbor can also no longer re-use their own seeds.

Something should be done about this situation.  I understand the farmers signed an agreement that they can not re-sue the seeds.  Perhaps we need a Federal law, or even a constitutional amendment, preventing such contractual clauses that license living things rather than selling them.  Monsanto should be required to improve their product in order to make more sales.  Or perhaps the license can be valid, but could be for a minimum of 5 years at a time, allowing farmers a less expensive path by re-using seeds for 5 years before needing to purchase again.

I think this is clearly a monopoly. If one car company or one gas company or one phone company controlled 91% of the market, there would be a lot more noise. However it seems that Monsanto has learned from those that came before them and have done a much better job hiding this.

Because there is no proof that GM crops are bad for us physically, the FDA has no right to label GM products. Even if they did, the genetic modification is actually part of the pesticide, and thereby domain of the EPA. But since GM crops are foods, the EPA can't do anything. Furthermore, by consolidating farms and pushing the use of markets of scale to get farmers to plant commodity crops, they've driven a greater divide between the consumer and producer.

I think the only way out is to call for more information. Push for producers to label products as GMO free and for the government to allow them to do it, and support farmers who use non-GMO seed locally, and even go so far as to support them just for using GMO seed that's NOT Monsanto.

Non-GMO labeling is increasingly suspect because, as Monsanto fully knows despite its denials, it is impossible to contain these species. If there is a field in the vicinity that grows Monsanto's seed, it's virtually impossible for an organic farmer to truly know his crop is free of these genetic traits. To say such crops can be contained is a farce. Alfalfa is another crop that is now going through the same process in the farming community. One judge has been smart enough to put a hold on any new farms growing Monsanto's GMO version of alfalfa, but it's too late. It spreads to quickly, too easily. Altered genes have been found in supposedly heritage crops in Mexico for chrissake. The genie is out of the box. Pandora's box is open. Any other cliches come to mind? Because they all apply here.

SAY NO TO GMO'S DO NOT USE ANY MONSANTO PRODUCTS.get the word out.the stores you go to tell themSTOP SELLING MONSANTO PRODUCTS.GO ORGANIC

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FARMERS

And anything made with soybean oil. Is corn oil made from GMO corn these days? Then cut that out, too. You have to cook your own food, so you can control your ingredients. I don't think there's any other way.

Will enough people do that to have any kind of economic impact?  If not, the courts have opened the door to major change before. About 100 years ago, a combination of popular muckraking journalists and savvy politicians pushed back against monopolistic companies -- the Beef Trust, Standard Oil, insurance companies, financial institutions -- and it made for real change. We could do worse than look to the Progressive Era for strategies.

Please,
Somebody, why I can't find anything about what happenned with 'Schmeiser V Monsanto' that was supposed to go to court yesterday (Jan 23rd 2008).  Grist, and others, post these provacative stories and then leave us hangin'.  Nothing on AP or Reuters or Guardian or NZHerald or Google or etc. -- please use your sources to give us an update (Tom Philpott, you listening?)  [my challenge to all of you]
(maybe Saskatchewan news is a bit slower to hit the NET?  Did the case get rescheduled?)

Lew
(longtime lurker, 1st time poster, frequently pitying 'J-blo-Ma'[sic]; DOING the kinds of things you report on, pretty much since birth.)

BTW ... have tried to follow this story since seeing "Future of Food".  And thanks for all of the links, editorials, articles, and posts related to this topic ... as well as everything else you put 'out there'