C. Wadsworth

Jack Mahoff

Morty Rabinovitzski

Anna Coldbottom

Hardy Bohner

Leah Nice

Daon Lo

Dr. Mengeli

Toby Thomas




This web site debunks the Big Lie of Liberal Media. We exist because so many people watch TV and surf the web like moths doing wingovers into tiki torch flames. Fly away, Love.  

Buy our Book Now!

Latest Articles

Monsanto Rules, Judge agrees

Jack O'Mahoff
Posted on Feb 03 2016 at 9:42 AM
Latest Articles | Jack O'Mahoff

Though Monsanto has filed more than 800 lawsuits against farmers when its genetically modified crops have blown into their fields, "contaminating" the hapless farmers' crops with GMOs, the US Court of Appeals today threw out a lawsuit which sought to prevent the biotech giant from following up its next "accidental cross-pollination" with a lawsuit. Bravo, US Court of Appeals! Bravo! Monsanto Lawsuits are what this country is all about.

The Court was smart and trusting enough to believe Monsanto wouldn't sue again because it said so on Monsanto's web site. Organic weirdos and other liberal whackjobs afraid a little GMO might give them cancer or a host of other health problems or diseases that oddly turn up in every study of GMOs not sponsored by Monsanto are up in arms, of course, but those of us heavily invested in biotech can once again breathe easily. (If we don't have allergies or asthma or other lung-related problems GMOs can cause. You do know enough not to eat this stuff, don't you? It's strictly for investment.)

Tree huggers and other liberal losers love to call Monsanto "the world's most famous patent bully" because they don't have the money to invest in agra industry like we do.

Besides, Monsanto made "binding assurances" the court said, that it will not "take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land)." The court said that because "appellants have not alleged any circumstances placing them beyond the scope of those assurances, we agree that there is no justifiable case or controversy." 

The "binding assurances" refer to a statement on the company's website, so you can see how serious the court was about doing its research before making this important, pro-business decision.

The Monsanto web site clearly states: “[It] has never been nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”

When a company that has pursued only a little more than 800 patent cases against farmers who plant their genetically modified (GMO) RoundUp Ready seeds without paying the proper royalty makes a statement like that on its web site, you know that's a pretty strong statement that carries a lot of weight.

This is business, and Monsanto has enough sense to have a web site in which it can say anything it likes and give it to a judge and show it's playing fair. If the company later changes its web site, well, it's a free country, at least if you own a company as large and as profitable and as politically connected as Monsanto.

The coalition behind the suit includes many of the usual suspects, paranoid tree huggers and earth cookies: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) and Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association among more than 20 others. These losers had hoped to launch a "pre-emptive strike" to shield "organic" farmers from accusations of patent infringement in the event their organic crops become "contaminated" by genetically modified (GM) seeds.

In another legal coup, Monsanto officials refused to sign a covenant stating they would not sue growers who willfully or accidentally plant any GMO seeds. It's so helpful to business when we can get industry to police itself. Self regulation has worked out so well in the banking, housing and financial sectors; so why mess with a winning approach?



None Found

Add Comment