The Proposal to Outlaw the Home Garden - HR 875 and S 425

[stormymater]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

I spoke to my buddy Art yesterday. He runs a nursery that now specializes in veggies (plants and produce). He basically told me the regulations. In order to have a tasting he has to have facilities on-site to sterilize the utinsels (knives etc.). Secondly he must provide a separate enclosed area (surprisingly a screened in tent would suffice). Providing facilities to sterilize the utinsels is cost prohibitive for him. He's trying to get around it by seeing if he could provide a plastic knife and fork and letting the customer cut and try himself. Yes, he has to give up a tomato, but it might be cheaper in the long run.

I'm not sure what they do at the Farmer's Market. I'm having lunch with a friend who participates in the Farmer's Market on Monday. However, I think she only sells plants not produce. I will report back with any pertinent information.

Randy

This is the same path that caused my favorite butcher to close in the 1990s. Tew's Abbatoir was in Haw River, NC (of all places). The meat was vacuum sealed (no freezer burn ever) & they dressed according to what ever you wanted (restaurant thick steaks anyone?) . I was gone for the better part of a decade & was eager to hook back up with my old neighbor who raised tender little Black Angus & bring them to Tews. Turns out the neighbor didn't raise cattle anymore - he had sold a lot of his acreage for tract development (cul-de-sac & HOA anyone?) & Tews was closed. The feds had required them to place stainless steel doors (at a cost of >$150k) & the family said, "Uncle" & shut her down. So sad for a place that only ever smelled of wet cement & faintly of bleach - clean & quality family business, not agribusiness, gone forever. Government regulations - for my "safety" - pah. Nanny state encroachment to control the food supply.

[organichris]

Originally Posted by organichris

According to Linn Cohen-Cole's article at OpEdNews, Michael Taylor, one of Monsanto's GMO guys may be placed into the position of "food safety czar". To me, this is an obvious conflict of interest, given the authority he would be able to wield over farms.

I wanted to revisit this because I just happened to see a great documentary this weekend called The Future of Food.The film documents Monsanto's GM programs and its ties to government. While none of us are still able to prove or disprove Cohen-Cole's assertion that Monsanto employee Michael Taylor is slated to be the next "food safety czar" should this bill pass, I thought this anecdotal evidence on ties between Monsanto and U.S. government officials was worth mentioning:

*Prior to being a Supreme Court Judge,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

*The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

*The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

*The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

*The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board

*Linda J. Fisher, head of government affairs for Monsanto, was appointed by president Bush as the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

[tache]

I think I would be very careful about this. I don't really know this particular bill but I do know that any time a proposal to regulate any thing at all is put forth there is an enormous effort to oppose it for doing things it doesn't do... Some times for good reasons and some times for very bad reasons. I think it would be absolutely suicidal for any legislator from Oregon to place any restrictions on organic farming.Our reps in congress are no more alruistic than any others.

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by organichris

...
*Prior to being a Supreme Court Judge,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer...

I've seen similar lists with more emphasis on lawyers that worked for or had Monsanto as clients. The thing that strikes me when looking at the lists: Why does Monsanto need so many lawyers?

Randy

[organichris]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

I've seen similar lists with more emphasis on lawyers that worked for or had Monsanto as clients. The thing that strikes me when looking at the lists: Why does Monsanto need so many lawyers?

Randy

I think most multinational corporations have several lawyers for multiple purposes. In Monsanto's case, one of those purposes is to sue farmers whose crops are found to have Monsanto genetics in them unknowingly. If pollen from a crop of GMO corn pollinates your corn and you save and plant your seeds the next year, you are breaking the law because you are not licensed to grow Monsanto corn. I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is absolutely true. If they even suspect that their genetics have wound up in your crops they send people into your field to take samples of your plants to examine whether they have the same genetic makeup as their own. If they find that to be the case, you will get a threatening letter from a Monsanto lawyer.

And just so everyone is clear, this is not a hypothetical scenario. This actually has happened.

[stormymater]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

I've seen similar lists with more emphasis on lawyers that worked for or had Monsanto as clients. The thing that strikes me when looking at the lists: Why does Monsanto need so many lawyers?

Randy

"Growth" industry, LOL
Seems growing lawyers is one of the few industries not being out-sourced overseas.

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by organichris

I think most multinational corporations have several lawyers for multiple purposes. In Monsanto's case, one of those purposes is to sue farmers whose crops are found to have Monsanto genetics in them unknowingly. If pollen from a crop of GMO corn pollinates your corn and you save and plant your seeds the next year, you are breaking the law because you are not licensed to grow Monsanto corn. I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is absolutely true. If they even suspect that their genetics have wound up in your crops they send people into your field to take samples of your plants to examine whether they have the same genetic makeup as their own. If they find that to be the case, you will get a threatening letter from a Monsanto lawyer.

And just so everyone is clear, this is not a hypothetical scenario. This actually has happened.

In my first post several pages ago I mentioned having it in for Monsanto since the Percy Schmeiser case. In this case it was canola, but otherwise similar. What really spun me up was when he (Schmeiser) found Monsanto plants growing on his property and called the company to remove them and they wouldn't remove them unless he signed an agreement stating that he would not speak publically about it, not devulge information about the settlement, and released the company of all liability. Needless to say he didn't sign and had to remove the plants himself.

Regarding the lawyers. That's what I was basically getting at (i.e. my perception that Monsanto has a disproportionate number of lawyers). What do they need them for, but to bring cases against innocent farmers like Percy Schmeiser? And, of course to defend themselves against monopoly and anti-trust suits.

Could you supply a name for a really good corn case? Kind of like I did with Percy Schmeiser? I like to use the Percy Schmeiser case, but would like to have a bit more in the arsenal so to speak.

Randy

[organichris]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

Could you supply a name for a really good corn case? Kind of like I did with Percy Schmeiser? I like to use the Percy Schmeiser case, but would like to have a bit more in the arsenal so to speak.

Randy

No, I can't unfortunately. Actually, I should have been more specific to note that the practice I was referring to happens to farmers in general. Since it has already happened with canola, the precedent has already been set. I didn't mean to imply that it had happened to corn farmers, although I would imagine it has. I was specifically thinking of the Schmeiser case.

In the documentary The Future of Food, they show other cases but I can't recall them and I'm not sure whether they involved corn. However, the other farmers had eventually reached settlements that they were barred from speaking about.

[stormymater]

Originally Posted by organichris

I think most multinational corporations have several lawyers for multiple purposes. In Monsanto's case, one of those purposes is to sue farmers whose crops are found to have Monsanto genetics in them unknowingly. If pollen from a crop of GMO corn pollinates your corn and you save and plant your seeds the next year, you are breaking the law because you are not licensed to grow Monsanto corn. I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is absolutely true. If they even suspect that their genetics have wound up in your crops they send people into your field to take samples of your plants to examine whether they have the same genetic makeup as their own. If they find that to be the case, you will get a threatening letter from a Monsanto lawyer.

And just so everyone is clear, this is not a hypothetical scenario. This actually has happened.

Hmmmm.... their promiscuous plants send their gametes onto my property & that gives Monsanto the right to send people into my fields & then accuse of ... stealing their pollen/genetic info? Something is seriously wrong with that. Sounds like they need to be constructing pollen-proof barriers so as not to contaminate my crops with their ... pollen. Someone roaming my fields would be grounds for pics & a discussion that easily could be officially escalated.
They are in serious need of a letter on the order of the "Dammed Beaver" letter - sent certified & published in the paper.

[svalli]

Monsanto has patented breeding of pigs in Europe.
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/i...d=29&Itemid=20
Soon they will own everything we eat...

[stormymater]

Originally Posted by svalli

Monsanto has patented breeding of pigs in Europe.
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/i...d=29&Itemid=20
Soon they will own everything we eat...

That's ridiculous - the only reason they are able to promote such common knowlege as proprietary is b/c there are no organized groups with $$$ or altruistic attorneys to contest them. Patent offices are supposed to decline patents for common knowledge which I think in vivo & many AI methods are now. Profound hubris. When is the patent on human reproduction coming & where will the first court case be?
"Oh, you can't do that - we patented that move"...

[organichris]

Courts have already set a dangerous precedent by allowing them to patent and therefore own genetic material. The ideology behind patenting things that already exist is to push the envelope as far as possible in order to be the first one to patent them. Sometimes companies actually get away with this.

Another dangerous precedent (and I'm about to digress here in order to foment even more public outrage) is that the federal government, under the previous administration, passed the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act. Essentially the government has claimed ownership of the DNA of every American newborn. Now they can take your child's DNA and conduct research on it without your consent. Notice how the names of these laws always sound like they are in the public interest. Here's the text of the law:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1858.ENR:

[tache]

Please stop and think. Is this really what this bill does. Is it possible that you are working to defeat a bill that does exactly the opposite of what this title claims.

[feldon30]

http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/ | http://w2.eff.org/patent/ | http://endsoftpatents.org/


I would be a billionaire by now if I'd patented certain EXTREMELY obvious software ideas. Remember, these aren't implementations detailing the actual program, or how you would do it, with any blueprints or plans, or any type of method. These are "idea" patents that most of these patent recipients never actually made a product. They just waited for someone else to come to the same obvious idea, create a product, and then send them a bill for millions of dollars.

It's the equivalent of saying "I think I will patent the idea of making glass which has a color". They never actually do anything with the patent but sit on it. Then someone spends 10 years figuring out how to make stained glass and when they come out with their first product, the patent owner sends them a bill and says "give me all your money". Sorry, but patents are not supposed to work that way. They are not supposed to be obvious.

A good example of a patent (IMO) is a Workmate. This is a folding portable work bench with handles and knobs to hold pieces of wood in place while you cut them, etc. The patent is detailed and took some work and some thought.

Some silly software patents, some of which have made the holders VERY rich:

• putting a link within a document that you can click (hint: the Internet)
• displaying animation within a document (Flash, Youtube, etc.)
• a portable device that receives and sends e-mail (Blackberry)
• a device to record, rewind, and fast forward live television (TiVo)
• making a telephone call using the microphone and speakers of a computer (Vonage)
• recording a rock concert and selling that recording
• a online shopping cart (Amazon.com)
• displaying a list of TV shows and their scheduled air times (Gemstar/TV Guide)
• taking a practice SAT/PSAT/ACT test on a website (test.com)
• a phone book/directory type website (yellow pages)
• paying for a product using a credit card on your computer
• filling out a loan application and submitting it through your computer
• a Preview window to view an image on a website
• using an automated voice system to order products through your cell phone

These are actual patents that have been issued and many enforced to the tune of millions of dollars folks. For VERY obvious ideas that should never have gotten a patent.

And people think it's just software companies. "The Green Bay Packers, Kraft Foods, and Ford Motor are facing software patent infringement lawsuits."

It's to the point now that some people are having to get business insurance before they will start to write a piece of software because some patent predator somewhere in the world might have a patent on something really obvious that ends up being similar to the product the firm develops.

[BattleOfBennington]

Chris -

They are covering this bill on Glenn Beck right now, and his research / Legal team are saying that there are major issues in the bill.

Yes the bill grants power to control even small home gardens if the government wants to use that power.

Yes the bill grants power of what seeds are legal, fertilizer etc if the government wants to use that power.

yes the bill requires any grower to trace the origin of that tomato and what happens to it all the way to the consumer (where did the seed come from, how was the plants fertilized, etc) if the government wants to use that power.

It was decided that this bill is bad because it gives the government a blank check of power to use at any time if it wants. It may not be an issue at the moment, but 2, 3, 20 years from now, if the government chooses to restrict home gardens, organic growers, seed sources, strains of varities, etc - all the government will need to do is start issuing the mandates via executive orders, or even just under direction of the FDA, Dept of Ag, etc.