This is insane and the government is going to have to do something about it…like pass a law that politicians cannot accept any contributions from these companies! Are we really going to sit around as these businesses patent our vegetables?…eventually the only vegetables left on the planet? So if your plant DNA mixes with my plant DNA on a totally uncontrollable breeze, you own my seeds? Like I said, this is insane. The only thing crazier is the behavior of our politicians.
IJ if you are going to reprint articles from other sources I think you owe us, the readers, a little editorial work prior to printing. The article starts out with saying this is a pesticide issue and in the next paragraph corrects itself to say that it is in fact a herbicide issue. Well which is it. Genetically altered plants are a fact in that the yields are far greater and you can use herbicide’s without harm to your plants. I do though question how the chemical companies are to blame in this case as most herbicides become inert with contact to earth so if they are impacting neighboring fields it is a drift problem as stated which is the responsibility of the neighboring farmer for improper application not the chemical itself.
I know the neighbor does not have the deep pocket so go after the money, no wonder the courts are so backed up.
Herbicides are a type of pesticide, so both statements are true. I believe you have mistaken pesticide for insecticide; an easy mistake to make, but your mistake and not IJ’s.
Dicamba does not become inert when it contacts the soil, which compounds with the fact that the original formula is water soluble to open up drift from inversion under certain weather conditions (conditions they call “summer nights” in much of soybean and cotton country). In this manner, it can travel much further than normal drift, also breaking a clear chain of liability. There are formulations developed that reduce the inversion but those are newer than the resistant seed and not approved in most states.
So, the idea that chemical companies might be liable stems partially from the fact that they sold a product that they knew was prone to wiping out neighboring fields in a way that a reasonable person might not have thought possible, though the information was available to farmers. That doesn’t mean they are liable, but it’s apparently enough to file suit.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Monsanto predicted the outcome, as they greatly from the drift issue (many farmers who lost crops in 2016 bought resistant seed for 2017 even though they don’t use Dicamba). However, that’s an ethical speculation rather than a legal issue, and does not put any legal burden on Monsanto. Given the distance factor, it will be difficult to find the truly, directly liable party.
Thanks for the information, I do find it very interesting that depending upon which definition one uses for pesticide it can include both plant and insect/rodents etc. or just insects and rodent type pests. Amazing how different sources will provide various information for the same word.
This is insane and the government is going to have to do something about it…like pass a law that politicians cannot accept any contributions from these companies! Are we really going to sit around as these businesses patent our vegetables?…eventually the only vegetables left on the planet? So if your plant DNA mixes with my plant DNA on a totally uncontrollable breeze, you own my seeds? Like I said, this is insane. The only thing crazier is the behavior of our politicians.
IJ if you are going to reprint articles from other sources I think you owe us, the readers, a little editorial work prior to printing. The article starts out with saying this is a pesticide issue and in the next paragraph corrects itself to say that it is in fact a herbicide issue. Well which is it. Genetically altered plants are a fact in that the yields are far greater and you can use herbicide’s without harm to your plants. I do though question how the chemical companies are to blame in this case as most herbicides become inert with contact to earth so if they are impacting neighboring fields it is a drift problem as stated which is the responsibility of the neighboring farmer for improper application not the chemical itself.
I know the neighbor does not have the deep pocket so go after the money, no wonder the courts are so backed up.
Herbicides are a type of pesticide, so both statements are true. I believe you have mistaken pesticide for insecticide; an easy mistake to make, but your mistake and not IJ’s.
Dicamba does not become inert when it contacts the soil, which compounds with the fact that the original formula is water soluble to open up drift from inversion under certain weather conditions (conditions they call “summer nights” in much of soybean and cotton country). In this manner, it can travel much further than normal drift, also breaking a clear chain of liability. There are formulations developed that reduce the inversion but those are newer than the resistant seed and not approved in most states.
So, the idea that chemical companies might be liable stems partially from the fact that they sold a product that they knew was prone to wiping out neighboring fields in a way that a reasonable person might not have thought possible, though the information was available to farmers. That doesn’t mean they are liable, but it’s apparently enough to file suit.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Monsanto predicted the outcome, as they greatly from the drift issue (many farmers who lost crops in 2016 bought resistant seed for 2017 even though they don’t use Dicamba). However, that’s an ethical speculation rather than a legal issue, and does not put any legal burden on Monsanto. Given the distance factor, it will be difficult to find the truly, directly liable party.
Thanks for the information, I do find it very interesting that depending upon which definition one uses for pesticide it can include both plant and insect/rodents etc. or just insects and rodent type pests. Amazing how different sources will provide various information for the same word.