this has never proven to have been the case in any of these suits. This has always been about farmers either re-using seeds (which Monsanto strictly forbids in its licensing agreements) or cultivating seed which the farmer did not purchase. So, either the farmers signed an agreement which they breached, or did not sign an agreement but actively cultivated seeds. There was no happenstance or cross pollination which was not deliberate on the part of the farmer. Please cite the case where a jury found otherwise.

yes, this is the case that is often conflated. From Monsanto's perspective, it isn't just about the licensing FEE, but the agreement to how the seeds are used. and cross-contamination (so to speak) dilutes the advantages of the seeds which are licensed. It is a quality control issue. However, Monsanto received an outrageous gift from Congress, hidden in an unrelated bill, which passed, that will not let any suits regarding these seeds to be brought against Monsanto. This is clearly a crony, sleazy move on the part of the company and NOT free market.

I think this is a bit complicated. First, I am a small part-time farmer. Even though I am small, I am still commercial as it is being sold - it is a business - whether small or large - it's still commercial. I cater to farmers markets, local restaurants, local health food stores, etc...

Many of the customers I sell to are looking for non-GMO and such. So, my crops remaining untainted by local GMO crops, is important to my small commercial operation.

GMO is not hybrid. Cross pollinating of heirloom strains produce hybrids. I suppose Hybrids cross pollinated with other hybrids would produce other hybrids - but predictability and consistency of output would be hard to determine at best.

So, if I intend to use some of my current crop to collect seeds for the following year's crop, neighboring farms plantings would cause me to end up with seeds that are no longer the strain I started with. The idea that no commercial operation uses heirloom varieties is not correct.

Additionally, from my understanding, is that the large companies who invest in producing GMO strains, have and will try to shut down via lawsuits, surrounding farmers if they determine that you have plants with their GMO patters in them. So, if they plant a GMO crop (and even their hybrids) next to yours and you use seeds from your crop in the following year, you future plants will have genetic patters containing their hybrid and GMO - patented strains. They will then sue you because you didn't buy those seeds from them.

This is plain biology and is an anticipated and expected result. Cross pollination will happen when planted in some proximity to each other. That distance is not a set distance either. It depends on the pollinators involved. Bees, birds, etc... Size of plantings, prevailing winds, etc...

But there is no question that it can contaminate heirloom strains. There is no question that there are many people and particular clientele that do not want GMO.

With that issue and potential law suits from companies suing over "stolen" patented strains, there is very real pending damage that is almost guaranteed.

Stopping the companies from planting these crops related to this law suit and waiting to see the research, findings, and hearing the arguments makes sense.

I am not anti-science by any means. BUT I also say that the science is not there yet in relation to GMO - there simple can't be in the short term. Complications from GMO could take decades to emerge and even longer to determine that they are the cause. Hybridization is a much different creature than GMO. Hybridization is normal in nature. GMO is not. GMO allows introduction of completely - normally incompatible genetics - to be brought together (such as lightning bug DNA in corn). That does not happen in hybridization and selective breeding.

We would not want a farmer dumping excess weed killer next you property - causing mass plant death on your property - and being told to wait until they do it (destroying your plant life) before you could file for a stay in the courts.

I am also very anti-regulation... I suppose in this case, filling for some kind of stay in the courts until you can argue your cases would be better than regulation, but even that could be abused.

My overall point is to make sure you understand that there is valid argument on the side of the commercial operations (in my case - small) going up against large GMO-using farms and the GMO seed companies.

As far as how to deal with it, I don't know right now - but to simply let them do whatever they want when the outcome is so predictable doesn't seem right either. No more than toxin dumping or other obviously bad practices.

This has never made sense to me. A search for the case led me to Monsanto Canada vs Schmeiser.

According to what I can find out, there was some cross contamination but that was not the issue, what happened was that he harvested, saved and reused the seeds from the crop. It was this deliberate reuse that was the source of the suit.

Monsanto wanted him to sign a license agreement and pay a fee, he claimed that the seeds were his to use as he wanted.

The court ruled he was violating Monsanto's Patent.

Is this the case you were referring to?

Ask Monsanto. A GMO crop contaminated an adjacent farm, and Monsanto sued the non-GMO farmer, because his crop contained plants that had been contaminated with the GMO pollen. What surprised me is the fact that, even though the farmer had refused to buy the GMO seeds, and his crop had been contaminated with GMO pollen, he was convicted. By my reasoning, if you create a product, and fail to prevent its undesired spread to another's farm, then you should have NO standing in a court to go after the injured farmer. That's worse than a bank throwing its money in the streets, and then having people arrested for picking it up. If you don't want unauthorized people accessing your product, the onus is on you to provide an adequate level of security. Clearly, that's not possible in farming, where the wind and insects (like bees) can spread a crop's pollen far and wide. Therefore, the non-GMO farmers have a right to do what they've done. It's only self defense.

Perhaps, but then they wouldn't be organic, thus negating their business model. They also need to be protected from being sued for wind-blown seed germinating on their property when they had no intention of it being there.

It seems to me these organic farms and agro-biotech companies need to accept incidental GMO contamination on neighboring farms.

It's not necessarily poisoning the neighboring farms. There have been cases where big agricultural companies have successfully sued small farmers when the GMO/customized plants were found on the other farm, even though the farmer didn't buy or plant the seeds (wind or cross-pollination). The small farmer had no intention of using the seeds and therefore should not be held liable for the plants that ended up on his property.

This is doubly absurd given that none of our commercial crops are heirloom strains. They have all been "modified" by selective breeding.

The judge is simply promoting a popular political bias against "GMO" plant strains.

"Part of the problem with the ruling is that the refusal to grant a stay of enforcement in this case "
I missed that part and focused on the $4.2 million.

I agree. There's no way they should enforce this law with them unless there's evidence of damages.

Time was that the injured party (in this case, the farmer) could sue and win for restraint of trade. The mills of the gods grind slowly...

Part of the problem with the ruling is that the refusal to grant a stay of enforcement in this case pretty much decides the issue in favor of the new ordinance without regards to its hearing. Normally, the stay is granted pending the outcome of the suit so that the evidence can first be weighed. In this case, they are presuming damages to have occurred prior to them ever happening and ruling that pre-emption of action is equivalent to enforcement. That's a very dangerous precedent to set, because it rules that the government can punish you before you even do something - that they can convict you based on allegations rather than actual proof of damages. That to me is a very dangerous action for a court to take.

The judge ruled that the right to farm law does not apply to activities that harm commercial agriculture. This ruling, as I understand it, does not rule that planting GMO crops nearby does actually harm commercial agriculture. That will be decided in the $4.2 million law suit.

I do not understand the plaintiffs' assertion that "will stand as a precedent for the rights of farmers and communities across the United States to create GMO-free zones to protect the future of our food."

It seems to me the judge is rightly saying that the right to farm law shouldn't allow you to do some activity on your land that poisons a neighboring farms crops. I don't believe GMO crops are harmful. How would the GMO companies make money if a significant portion of GMO crops ended up on neighboring farms for free?