I have read these receipts and literally the first story is about Percy Schmeiser, a farmer who used seed from plants grown on his own land that had been “contaminated” with genes from a neighboring farm.
He had never signed any contract with Mansanto and didn’t take the seeds from his neighbor. Plants on his property were “contaminated” through natural means.
It then ends with a brief note about 700 farmers who settled out of court and lumps them under the guilty umbrella because they settled.
But worst of all, this site that this article is posted on is a propaganda mouth piece for Monsanto. It is owned and funded by the same guy owns and funds Monsanto’s PR company.
I mean, I totally agree with all forms of breaking IP law on ethical grounds. But I also recognise that it’s still breaking the law right now.
Why “but”? Why are those two statements viewed as contradicting each other in tone?
You getting downvoted for stating what’s factually correct while still disagreeing with it is classic shooting the messenger.
The messenger is getting shot for not bringing receipts. I was about to shoot them too, then I retrieved a receipt: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/01/05/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto-suing-farmers-for-accidentally-planting-patented-seeds/
I have read these receipts and literally the first story is about Percy Schmeiser, a farmer who used seed from plants grown on his own land that had been “contaminated” with genes from a neighboring farm. He had never signed any contract with Mansanto and didn’t take the seeds from his neighbor. Plants on his property were “contaminated” through natural means.
It then ends with a brief note about 700 farmers who settled out of court and lumps them under the guilty umbrella because they settled.
But worst of all, this site that this article is posted on is a propaganda mouth piece for Monsanto. It is owned and funded by the same guy owns and funds Monsanto’s PR company.