Organic Seeds Growers are Suing Monsanto – support them


Hold Monsanto accountable for organic seed contamination and protect the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) from wrongful and harassing lawsuits from Monsanto in the future.

Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for patent infringement over the years, often wrongfully. Well, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) has decided to sue Monsanto for wrongful patent infringement lawsuits.

Problems with genetically modified seeds

Giant corporations are coming to control the food supply. The system they instill is set up perfectly for monoculture, which destroys ecosystem diversity.

Ecosystem diversity is important for controlling disease and pests. Company like Monsanto attempt to control this by using chemicals and genetically modified seeds (which are failing). They are shrinking the world’s seed diversity through these tactics.

OSGATA assures organic farmers have access to quality organic seeds. They also help ensure that consumers have the option of eating healthy, organic food.

It is all too common that genetically modified seeds to cross-pollinate with organic ones through natural processes, and this is when companies like Monsanto sue the organic farms. Seems a bit odd because I’m sure that the non-GMO farmers aren’t too happy their seeds have been contaminated.

A successful suit would additionally hold Monsanto accountable for where its seeds are planted as well as for the organic crops they contaminate.

Signing this petition will support OSGATA in winning a decisive victory in Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, a victory that will shift the winds of fate to fill the sails of organic farmers and organic food.

Photo credit: Flickr Creative Commons by justaprairieboy

26 thoughts on “Organic Seeds Growers are Suing Monsanto – support them”

  1. In the natural world of breeding and cross-breeding, insects and diseases have developed resistance to naturally occurring plant defenses since the beginning of time. This is nothing new. It’s known as “Evolution.” I disagree that Monsanto is attempting to control our food supply through chemicals and biotech. Actually large agchem companies such as Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and many others, are obviously trying to make a profit, but also are trying to help farmers work on a commercial scale to feed all of us at an affordable price and environmentallly safe as can be. I’ll admit this problem of cross-contamination has to be dealt with by having perhaps larger buffer zones or some type of enclosure structures to prevent GMO seeds from drifting off site, but to paint large chemical companies as demons and evildoers is a bit unfair. I also take issue with your comment that “organic” foodstuffs are “healthier” than conventional farm products. Nowhere in peer-reviewed literature has this assumption ever been proven. And, as far as the safety of GMO products, they have been on the store shelves for two decades now without a proven example of a sickness related to their consumption. No, GMOs are here to stay and will serve us well as our challenge of feeding the world increases by 2 billion people over the next 40 years.

  2. Ecosystem diversity is not destroyed by monoculture, agricultural diversity is. There is a world of difference, and if you use an efficient enough monoculture, it can have the perk of preventing more land from coming under the plow, hence preserving ecological biodiversity. Furthermore, insect biodiversity on farms using GMO crops has increased due to the lesser spraying needed by Bt crops (not sure if the no-till methods promoted by herbicide tolerant crops have increased soil biodiversity but it wouldn’t surprise me). So, your comment about biodiversity nad the implication that GMOs harm them is, as Peter Raven, an expert on biological diversity, put it ‘the exact opposite of the truth’. Take away genetic engineering and grain farmers aren’t suddenly going to start growing teff and quinoa, fruit farmers aren’t going to start growing goumi and jujubes, vegetable farmers aren’t going to start growing chaya and oca. Maybe if people actually started promoting biodiversity instead of just using it as a talking point when bashing GMOs we might change things for the better, maybe we could even use biotechnology to improve such crops to facilitate wider cultivation, but thinking that would violate that simplistic black-and-white notion that biodiversity and biotechnology are polar opposites, and we wouldn’t want any nuance seeping into our false dichotomy. As a huge proponent of biodiversity, I really, really wish the anti-GMO movement would stop using it as one of their vacuous unscientific arguments. You’re hurting us. There’s hundreds of crops out there people should be researching and what we need is promotion of them as standard foodstuffs (as opposed to mere novelties at best), not to be associated with a movement back to some agricultural dark ages.

    And yes, seed cross pollinates, get used to it. You think people should sue over it? I hope you support it going both ways then. If I’m growing a GMO, and someone else’s pollen cross pollinates mine, can I sue them? Heck, we don’t even need GMOs involved, what if I’m growing Red Kuri squash & Cream of Saskatchewan watermelon you’re growing some other varieties and your’s cross pollinate mine? Lawsuit? I don’t think so. A transgene should be no different. Also, as far as I know (and I could be wrong here) Monsanto has never sued anyone for simple cross pollination, they’ve sued because farmers have intentionally and knowingly selected for those traits, which is a violation of copyright law. Like Percy Schmeiser; he knew full well what he was doing, and then when he got caught, played the victim and opportunistically became the darling of the anti-GMO movement. I’m certainty not about to say I agree with how that works, but lets not pretend it just happens. The opposite, however, is not true, just ask Mick Baxter ( Quite frankly, if you want to impose fanatical zero tolerance laws on yourself, fine, your call, but the onus of it is on you to maintain it, not everyone around you. It’s my right to create a market demand for food not grown within ten miles of a tomato farm, but it isn’t my right to tell the farmers down the road what they can and can’t grow as a result of my anti-tomato paranoia. Hey, their scientific name is wolf peach…OMG, they must attract werewolves, don’t want my food contaminated with those vibes! People really did used to believe that, and before you laugh, do you really think history will be any kinder to your superstitions?

    In short, this whole thing is a load of nonsense and I suspect is just another marketing gimmick to bring awareness to and sell non-GMO food (cause making a profit is only wrong when Monsanto does it). Also, yeah, what that other guy said…organic foods aren’t healthier. In fact, GMO corn has less mycotoxins because with less insect attack they have less injuries that fungal infections can grow in, making GMO corn safer. Look it up.

      1. If by science you mean studies funded by corporations who will profit from the findings, then yes.

        I love science. I also love eating healthy food and knowing that the farmers who are growing the organic foods that I prefer to buy are safe from nuisance lawsuits from corporations like Monsanto.

        1. Who should fund the studies? Greenpeace? Taxpayers? You know those industry studies are peer-reviewed, right? All the studies pointing to harm from GMs have not stood up to peer review.

          Or maybe you just think the London Royal Society, The Gates Foundation, the NIH, the FDA, and numerous others are all out to kill us all.

          btw, I fully support organic agriculture for local produce, but GMs will be part of the solution. Get used to it, they aren’t going away.

          1. Among many others. It was in the news just this morning that ANBio in Brazil just approved the a GMO bean, fully developed in Brazil by the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. I don’t think many people comprehend just how world wide genetic engineering really is. There are so many people at universities out there developing GMOs, from GM peppers in China to GM rice in Iran to GM bananas in Nigeria to GM wheat in Australia to GM grapes in France (destroyed by eco-terrorists unfortunately) that the notion that all of it is bought and paid for by corporations (which usually means Monsanto) isn’t just laughable, it is telling of the lack of knowledge of those who believe it.

          2. Who should fund the studies?
            Tax payers normally do. Directly or indirectly.
            Corporations are at least, privately funded by government grants.
            All universities are.

            The FDA has been compromised for years.
            They have actually approved subdermal chip placement in human beings, or have issues like this slipped your attention?

            I wouldn’t trust the Gates Foundation with the time of day. This is Microsoft, who have DHS agents included in their programming Dept.

            Are you really so naive that you believe that any body in a position of authority is ethically sound?

            Just in passing, the peer review process has a few holes: 2,4,5,T (Agent Orange) DDT, Super phosphate, among many, many others, were all peer reviewed and acclaimed. What’s your view on this?

            I’m afraid I’m going to be voting on a little bit more than a mental attitude that isn’t just severely faulty in the cognitive department, but also considers itself qualified to tell us to ‘get used to it’, whether a process is logically sound or not.

        2. Then I must ask you, what is the difference between these two statements:

          Statement 1: ‘Global warming is a big myth perpetuated by a vast left wing conspiracy to redistribute wealth to their commie buddies. All the climate scientists who propagate the myth that climate is changing and human activities can affect it are biased ideologues with hidden financial interests (every last one around the world is paid off by the communist plot). I saw something on the internet with a handful of studies disproving the whole thing, so there’s plenty of real scientific debate about it they ignore! It snowed the other day, so there! Listen to some talking head, not scientists! Besides, it was all invented so Al Gore can make money off carbon credits. Yep, the whole thing is Al Gore’s doing.’

          Statement 2: ‘The benefits & safety of GM crops are a big myth perpetuated by a vast corporate conspiracy to make lots of wealth for their Big Ag buddies. All the plant scientists who propagate the myth that GM crops are safe, useful, and necessary are biased ideologues with financial interests (every last one around the world is paid off by the corporate plot). I saw something on the internet with a handful of studies disproving the whole thing, so there’s plenty of real scientific debate about them they ignore! Superweeds, so there! Listen to some professional activist, not scientists! Besides, it was all invented so Monsanto can make money off chemicals. Yep, the whole thing was Monsanto’s doing.’

          I’m curious as to why the first is taken as the nonsense it is, but the second is often accepted as irrefutable truth. Because doing that is not science, its being dictated by your own biases, superstitions, and I suspect, beliefs about unrelated subjects (like politics and economic policies).

  3. Hi,

    You miss major points:
    The whole point of having diversity in seed stock is so that you have varieties that apply to different growing environments. With just GM varieties, the environment will need to change to accommodate them. We are already making this major mistake in spades.

    Monsanto and others pull tricks with regard to doing things like going to India, taking samples of a thousand different varieties of Basmati rice, then producing their own GM variety. Where’s ‘prior art’ in this? If they employ patent law to facilitate their grubby strategy we should be employing the same law to combat it. They can’t have it both ways. It’s because of this cute example, that Indian’s beggar farmers were the highest suicide rate in the world at the time, because Monsanto were dumping their GM Basmati on the Indian market, for less than the farmers could produce theirs for, under the guise of ‘Aid’.

    1. Well, I’d like to point out that genetic engineering really isn’t a variety in the conventional sense. It is just a way of altering a particular plant. That transgene can be inserted into a particular variety if needed, or it can be bred into local varieties. If you look at the Golden Rice project’s site, you’ll see that what they plan to do with it is breed the gene into local varieties to avoid that problem. So, you’re criticism is not relevant to genetic engineering so much as loss of genetic variety thanks to overuse of a handful of lines, which has been happening for the past hundred years and is hardly a fault of GMOs. Diversity is good, but it does not then follow that adding a new gene is bad. Remember what in the end crop diversity really is.

      As for your second comment about rice, I hope you know that there is not GM rice approved in India, so your story is pretty impossible. Also, I don’t see how Monsanto could dump anything since they’re not a food producer. Dumping is a problem for farmers in developing nations, yes, as are subsidies, but your story doesn’t even make sense and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Speaking of which, as for the suicides in India, I’m sure you have heard of another story, of the GM seed stolen from research plots, of the Indian farmers demanding that the proposed ban on Bt cotton not be implemented after the success of the GM seed. You’re taking a complex issue of globalization and economics and policies and oversimplifying it. If I recall correctly (and I could be wrong here), one of the issues that seed had was that there was a severe drought that year, so blaming the insect resistant trait is very odd. You could rightfully bring up many other issues here, but the fact that the seed is GM is not one.

      1. Here we have it again, with a declared debating champion, who has argued both sides and won on each occasion.
        So much for reality.

        Point the first: I fail to see where I have declared GM as ‘a variety’. Cite? The post is just a little further up the page.

        Point the second: My point was ‘exactly’ a loss of genetic variety. And not a handful of lines’. I believe that I clearly stated ‘a thousand different varieties of Basmati rice’. These are lines that have been naturally genetically modified to answer to the demands of different environmental circumstances and answer to that. The tactic of twisting that into the shape of a handful is more than a little transparent when viewed as a source of unbiased material.

        Point the third: ‘Diversity is good, but it does not then follow that adding a new gene is bad’. Isn’t even a logical statement.

        Point the fourth: I have no issue with plant breeding which is how you have twisted what I have said. What I have issue with is corporate entities that produce crop varieties with inert seed, so that farmers can’t grow from it; a patenting procedure that hands over ownership of the world’s food into the hands of a very few; and to accelerate the procedure dumping ‘Aid’ supplies and, despite your denial, it’s a matter of public record. Further twisting of reality is obvious when you state that I have said that GM corporates do the dumping, when it is the mechanism of a compliant government that does this. Corporate lobby groups, with plenty of money to splash around, is the factor that shapes law these days. Can you afford them? Neither can I, so the law doesn’t get shaped to our convenience, does it?

        Again, I could go on, but the rest of it is obvious drivel and that never needs pointing out.

        1. Hardly a champion, if I were I’d point out that using what I consider an amusing anecdote to imply I have no concern for truth veers dangerously close to the classic ad hominem fallacy, where you attack the person themselves to discredit their points. Now back to yours. You said ‘With just GM varieties, the environment will need to change to accommodate them.’ I pointed out that genetic engineering is more fluid than that, and while over reliance on too few varieties is a bad thing, transgenes can be inserted into those varieties, or they can be bred into them, making your argument about varieties, not GE. By acting as if GM crops had specific traits like the inability to adapt it certainly made it sound like genetic engineering was a specific variety. Perhaps you were talking about commercial lines of currently approved GM crops presently in use, in which case you should have been more specific, however, that is still not entirely true, as if I recall correctly those are bred into different lines quite frequently. The transformation event is the same (which is to say, they are all descended from whatever specific plant was originally genetically altered and approved for commercial use) but the variety is not.

          Your second point. Ok, so I’m guessing that yu mean the literal definition of genetic engineering (as in, the genes have been modified), not the conventional one (as in, the genes have been modified via genetic engineering). I’m not sure I quite get what you’re saying about the rice. Yeah, to lose a thousand types of rice is undeniably a negative occurrence, but I’m not sure where you’re going with that.

          Third, allow me to rephrase it then: “That diversity is good does not imply that adding new genes is bad.”

          Forth, I don’t recall mentioning issues with breeding in my above post (although I do mention it in another), so I don’t know where you got that. As for inert seed, are you referring to the terminator technology, or hybrid seed? Those are often confused and without knowing your level of knowledge on the subject I can’t be sure which you speak of. If you mean hybrid seed, which produces seed not really suitable for growing next year, then this has nothing to do with GM. Farmers have switched to using hybrids for higher yield and other features provided by hybrid vigor (although they naturally are not suitable for every situation). If you mean terminator seed, those are not in use. I could discuss them if you want, but as they are not in use I do not see how they are relevant to this particular discussion. As for ownership foof plant varieties, don’t thank Monsanto, thank Luther Burbank. To make a long story short, there have been plant protection acts since way before genetic engineering. If you disagree with Luther Burbank’s notion that he and others like him should have some control over his labors, that’s one thing, but again that is a separate discussion, and a wider one than just genetic engineering. See this: Also, I shall again say that harm has occurred in developing nations due to cheap subsidized food produced in developed nations, and again, that has nothing to do with GM. What you are saying is like claiming that corn syrup is bad for you, and corn syrup is produced by GM corn, so therefore GM corn is bad for you. That is a completely different issue. I feel that perhaps you have problems with other things that you are lumping in with genetic engineering (guilt by association?) and we are having to different entirely conversations.

  4. Monsanto’s predatory practices, their pesticides and their roundup tolerant plants threaten our health. Everyone with common sense and a conscience can clearly see that these kinds of practices and policies need to be stopped if we are to retain a healthy and diverse planet for our children and grandchildren.
    I suffer from a cancer that is a direct result of pesticides and this kind of cancer, lymphoma, is on the rise. Roundup has now been linked with birth defects, asthma and ADD.
    Please help in any way you can to fight Monsanto who does not care about the private lives of farmers or about the diversity of our planet. Monsanto’s money gains them too much political and popular support through misinformation and propaganda, and the people fighting for them need all the help they can get.

  5. If you’re going to discuss issues, please employ some level of responsibility in the situation. Public pinion is swayed in public forums and votes are made from opinion. We all have to live with that collective reality.
    Indian farmers have been killing themselves at the rate of 10,000/year for the past decade. Not just from GM, but also from usury as a result of GM, a farming sector that has no irrigation – totally reliant on monsoon also.
    A basic google search will provide good base reference for statements.
    One of *many* on the subject:
    So the fact that GM has never been approved for release in India is just so much garbage.
    Also, a lot of what has been said with regard to my comments bears no relation to what I actually said, in a number of places.
    Where have I said that GM is not varietal, for example.

    We can create anything, yes, like polystyrene that will be with us for ever in ever rapidly increasing amounts.
    Responsibilities go with creation also and forcing a market to buy a product that produces an inert seed, has exactly that same effect on any other variety it cross-breeds with and is backed by a patent enforcement policy that provides the ability to sue a farmer for his back teeth based on what direction the wind blows, isn’t just inane – it’s insane.

  6. Dear Elizabeth: I’m saddened by the fact that you have cancer. However, I would need scientific and medical proof pesticides caused it. Which pesticide(s) were you exposed to for your lymphoma determination? It is easy to state that your illness was caused by pesticides, but an all together matter when proving beyond all doubt that pesticides was the causation factor. This got Michele Bachmann in trouble this week when she said that a particular vaccine mandated by Rick Perry in Texas caused mental retardation in her daughter. Medical doctors across the nation dispute her claim. As far as piling on Monsanto, I have been inside their greenhouses in St. Louis and watched them use gene-splicing guns to modify plant organisms. Fascinating. Do you realize that it takes them on average of some $180 million and 8 years to get a product approved by government regulators. Even though only one product is approved under these conditions, at least 50 are denied because they fail to meet safety regulations. The EPA has some rigorous guidelines when it comes to registering new bio-tech plant products. They really aren’t the big bad guys you make them out to be.

    And, Becky, on the subject of organic foods, organic farming cannot solely feed the world’s growing population. According to crop experts Kirchman, Holger, Bergstrom and Lars, in the 2008 book “Organic Crop Production – Ambition and Limitations” – a scientific work that largely debunks utopian organic food claims – there would be a 40 percent reduction in global crop yields through large-scale conversion to organic agriculture. A 40 percent reduction in yield on a global scale is equivalent to the amount of crops required to feed 2.5 billion people.

    While describing the worldwide benefits of conventional fertilizers, the experts summarize their findings with this observation: “It is obvious that worldwide adoption of organic agriculture would lead to massive famine and human death.” Put simply, you can starve much of the world population so we can feel good about using organic labels, or utilize environmentally safe and agronomically sound conventional systems that will feed the world. You choose.

    Lastly, I am very impressed with GH. GH is knowledgeable, accurate and sensible in his/her pro-GMO comments. Scientific facts are the backbone of a good agrument pro or con about a particular subject. No pun intended, GH has this down to a science. GH must have been the champ in college debate class.

    1. Thanks! I’ve always been pretty good at debates, my proudest moment was in one class I argued that marijuana should be illegal, then a few weeks later, argued that it should be legalized. Won both of them. I spend a good bit of time with this particular issue because right now I’m working on a degree in hort sci at a state university and GM crops are the area I’m interested in (that and under-cultivated crops). Yeah, no surprise that it takes a real plant geek to bang out such long winded comments. I guess I know a fair amount about GE, I’ve even been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to work with it firsthand and have done a good bit of studying about it (from real sources and real experts, not whatever blog happens to be the most inflammatory), so I try to show people that there is another side to all the stuff you see floating around the internet, and that a lot of the rhetoric out there is, to put it politely, less than accurate. Communication is the only way this whole issue is going to get any more rational, so I try to do my part.

    2. I’m sorry, but a reasonable ‘tone’ doesn’t engineer agreement with those set outside the cream brick veneereal disease set.
      Pesticides are poisonous, fullstop, period.
      To imply that they have no negative impact on human existence is inane.
      This concept of being separate from what is around us, instead of an integral element within it the environment, is directly responsible for our deteriorating environmental scenario.

      ‘While describing the benefits of conventional fertilizers’ – just off the top of my head, perhaps you would be so kind as to describe the benefits we have gleaned from an overuse of super phosphate that has laid waste to massive amounts of arable ground and other ‘conventional’ farming practices such as clearing the land of trees and the resultant salination factor introduced by an altered water table. ‘Conventional’ obviously doesn’t work. Time to think outside the square!

      I’m afraid, also, that the parameters you draw on ‘choices’ that you then ask others to found decisions on is also radically at odds with ‘conventional’ schools of logic.

      That’s not all, but given that, the rest doesn’t stand as unquestionable either.

    1. Yes, we have a right to choose and a right to know what we are eating. This will also introduce regulation that will ensure corporate producers will get fined $5,000.00 or even less for non-compliance. That’s how it goes.

    2. I wonder, are you also demanding labeling for every other plant improvement method? What about mutant breeding? Yeah, little known fact, but a lot of plants out there were developed by treating them with mutagenic compounds or radiation. It randomly damages the DNA and useful mutants are selected. A good bit of wheat has been altered like this, or bred from an altered line. And do you like grapefruit? This is where Ruby Red came from. What about plants produced from tissue culture? They take pieces of plants and using hormones make them regrow entirely new plants. This process can result in a genetically identical plant one that regrew from a mutant cell. What about wide crosses? Ever heard of the Lanape potato? It contained dangerously high amounts of solanine, but was bred with good ol’ conventional breeding, with a wild potato. Did you know there was once poisonous celery? It was also produced through wide cross breeding, and it contained so much psoralens that it gave the harvesters rashes. What about triticale? A cross between wheat and rye, it was originally infertile until it’s chromosomes were doubled with the use of the chemical colchicine. Speaking of which, what about apples like Jonagold? It has extra chromosomes that most other apples don’t. What about actually removing the nucleus of the cell and putting it in something different, and other complex breeding techniques? They do that too, and speaking of breeding techniques, how would you feel if seed companies were selling seed that produced seed not fit for planting next year due to genetic instability? In the early 1900s that was called dangerous by some, but by the 70’s almost all corn was that type of seed, hybrid seed. I note with some irony that all of these are considered A-OK in organic production, although I have no doubt that if developed today and publicized as ‘Frankenfood’ that would not be the case. Yes, it is believed that genetic engineering is this big unnatural monster, yet blasting something with radiation or doubling it’s chromosomes with chemicals are perfectly natural and acceptable. I also note that none of these techniques have the regulatory burdens imposed upon them that genetic engineering has. You can mutate a seed with radiation and grow it outside the next day if you want.

      So, you want GMO labeling? I wonder, why only genetic engineering, but none of the above? Second, how is such a label in any way informative? If I tell you something is genetically modified, what does that say about it? Absolutely nothing, aside from that it is GM. It does not say the trait, or how it was inserted, or what it does or interacts with in the plant. It does not specify if the gene is transgenic, cisgenic, or anti-sense. If it tells nothing of such important details, how is it meaningful? Third, approved GMOs are objectively no different than any other crop. If you want to avoid them, then by all means, do so. You’ve got the organic label, go ahead and buy it, but demanding that everyone bend over backwards for your beliefs is not better than a group of people demanding mandatory labeling of food as Kosher/non-Kosher or Halal/Haram. You are entitled to create a market demand for specialty labels of course, but I do not see how anyone has the right to demand mandatory labels without good cause, cause that in this case simply is not there. Again, you are free to choose to buy organic food, but you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others.

      Perhaps the idea I heard put forward by Pamela Ronald is a good one. She spoke of possibility using some sort system where people could look up everything about their food…where it is from, what variety it is, what inputs have been used on it, and if it is GM and how it is GM. That sounds a lot more sensible than a fairly pointless label regarding a single technique, however, that would cost money in the form of higher food prices to cover that system, money that you do not have the right to demand others pay. You wouldn’t like to be made to tithe to my church, and I don’t want to pay for what amounts to a religious dietary restriction.

      I hope that all the people at that march are well informed and have thought long and hard on these issues and are not simply marching out there in complete ignorance of these facts with pictures of scary looking corn chanting popular misconceptions, because otherwise that march would be pretty silly, no? Yet looking at their site, I see exactly that. I mean, they’ve got someone injecting a corn with a syringe. It doesn’t work that way, and they expect to be taken seriously about a subject they know that little about? To quote Scott Adams, when did ignorance become a point of view?

  7. At last ! I only hope that this is the beginning of the end for Monsanto’s strong-arm practices. I believe that is is our God-give right to be healthy, but we have to have good, clean food (and water) to maintain good health. Everything that Monsanto does is counter to that right. Off with the giant’s head!

  8. I am sick and tired of the huge corporations ruining our food supply! We need to stick together and fight for what is right!. I don’t want to eat contaminated food anymore and I am sure you don’t either. We ship our good food to foreign countries and they ship their garbage over here for us to eat and nothing is being done about it. This is why cancer is rampant in this country. We all need to try to grow what we can for ourselves and fight for organic food in our grocery stores and public markets!!!

  9. So what happens if I SELECTIVELY breed an unbelievably good strain of, lets say corn, and patent it. If that cross breeds with one of their GMO strains, c an I sue them?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top