Monsanto suspends collection of royalties in Brazil following state court ruling
Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company, suspended collection of royalties for its Roundup Ready soybeans in Brazil while it appeals a state court ruling on intellectual property rights.
An appellate court in Mato Grosso this week upheld an injunction requested by a group of growers to stop fee collections in the state before a trial challenging patents for the genetically modified beans. Monsanto will temporarily suspend the collections nationwide to “maintain operational consistency,” the St. Louis-based company said Wednesday on its website.
Growers say the patent on the original Roundup Ready soybeans expired in 2010, ending their obligation to pay Monsanto a technology fee on the seeds. Monsanto says that Brazilian law extends the patent to 2014, when it expires in the US. Monsanto is counting on growth in Latin America, particularly Brazil, to meet its earnings forecast.
Monsanto said it expects appellate courts to decide whether collections can resume over the next several weeks, prior to the start of the trial in state court.
The outcome of the case won’t affect sales of Intacta soybeans, a newly patented product engineered to produce insecticide and tolerate Roundup herbicide. Farmers are currently testing Intacta beans prior to full commercial sales next year.
Suggested Stories
-
May 20th 2013
Brazil opens ports to private investment hoping to ease bottlenecks strangling exports growth
-
May 22nd 2013
Merkel and Brazil’s Rousseff the most powerful women in the world, according to Forbes
-
May 21st 2013
Brazil main opposition party elects a new leader and 2014 presidential hopeful
-
May 20th 2013
Brazil trapped by Argentina and Venezuela economic mismanagements
14 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Farmers.... Return to the time honored tradition of growing your crops with heritage seeds that you can save from year-to-year, and stop spraying your soils with poisons.
The small extra profits that you make from using genetically modified seeds and chemical poisons do not serve you when they kill your independence, and sicken your families and your countrymen who consume them. Rise up! Stand together! Resist Monsanto!
pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
Without technology like this we would be forced to use harsher more toxic chemicals that do more harm to us farmers and the environment. And to ask us to return to our honored tradition of growing crops with heritage seeds is just crap. Those seeds you speak of are outdated, have low yield potential and thus are not economical to plant. And then to ask us to stop spraying our soils with poisons, just goes to show how ignorant you are on the subject. Without the use of herbicides and pesticides it isn't possible to feed the world. We would essentially loose our entire fields to insects and weeds. Go check out a farm someday and you will know what I am talking about.
And don't mention organics to me because those are highly expensive and the population doesn't demand it, thus we would go broke if we all tried to plant it. Plus we couldn't produce enough food for the world.
Go back to your city and just enjoy that you have food in your grocery store.
www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/15/brazilian-farmers-win-2-billion-judgment-against-monsanto-2/
I'm sorry, I'm confused. it was impossible to grow grain or soybean crops before GMOs, prior to the 70s when Monsanto brought the first seeds to market? Argentina, the US, Canada, etc. weren't massive agricultural exporters until the 1970s when roundup ready seeds became available?
BTW, just because the patent is gone doesn't mean the seeds can't be used. In fact, now they're going to be low cost because they're royalty free.
As for what we used to do prior to GMOs, the same thing, but the yields were much less, about 50% from the link below...
www.soystats.com/2011/page_08.htm
So we CAN go back, but we would produce less food, and thus the price would go up. Also we will need to start spraying much more. You ask but before you did it well what changed? The laws protecting the enviornment prohibit the use of many types of pesticides and herbicides that may be very effective but harm the enviornment. So new ones are created, such as Glyphosate, but it requires the use of Round Up Ready soybeans.
But like you mentioned, the patent is expiring, or will (doesn't really matter after 2014) and the technology will be free to the public. But then new GMOs will come out that provide more benefits which the public demands and we will plant those varieties, because people want that. If not then Monsanto will go broke, but I highly doubt that it will reach that point.
Look here: http: //www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/
and here: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/15/dr-don-huber-interview-part-2.aspx
and here, in your own back yard:
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p
and just click on any of these links on Google with the words: roundup toxicity.
Round Up is a curse on the world and you are spreading that curse. Return to the ways of Patchamama, and she will bless you.
But with Monsanto it's also about power and control,and the short sighted selfish people only see gold glittering in the fields.
It's a major problem and it highlights power discrepancies in the neo-liberal world and globalisation.
how the forest areas replaced by GDO origin agriculture...
-- in 1991,Argentina had 34 millions hectares forests and in 2009 this went down to 29.6
-- in Bolivia forests reduced from 62 to 57 millions hectares.
-- in Brazil went down from 571 to 521 millions hectares.
-- in Paraguay went down from 21 to 17 millions hectares.
“...due to this lack of scientific information with which to prove causation.”
So from your first link I get that the there are not enough valid studies out there. Thus anyone saying that it is VERY toxic is full of bs because, well, there aren't any studies on it. Well then why doesn't someone do one (which many have but this website's intro states this so that is why I mention it).
I skipped the second link, but the third...
“...the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient.”
So Monsanto is using an approved ingredient in its formula. This ingredient POEA is found to be inert (they could be wrong, I'll give you that). I'm sure as more research is done and should it be found that this is a concern, then they will just change the ingredient.
The principal chemical, glyphosate, is known to be toxic, but much less so than other chemicals that we have at our disposal. That is why we farmers prefer to use glyphosate, but not necessarily Roundup. I live in a rural community and intoxications do occur, but usually from extremely dangerous red labeled chemicals; mostly pesticides (monsanto has a GMO that prevents us from using this pesticide but it hasn't been proved in Paraguay). It is a work related health hazard and there are means to prevent accidents.
Look, whatever chemical we use is going to have some danger to it. But with glyphosate, it is safer than most and we can use much less of it. It isn't perfect, but there isn't an alternative.
#7 - I want to make money, that is why I work. If what we farmers are doing is so bad then why is the world living so much longer. I am selfish, but at least my selfisness helps to produce food for the world.
#8 - Biofuel subsidies has put pressure to open more farm land; deforestation is greatly linked to the policies of government. 50% of USA corn goes to fuel, that land could be used for food instead.
Your selfishness doesn't help the world it just so happens you might think it does.The whole criticism of Monsanto is that they are competing in an area of business that exploits natural resources and they want to eliminate competition so they become dominant.Will that benefit the world or is the nature of business to look after itself rather than the world.Isnt that why they have ethical policies and governance policies.
You are being naive with your simplistic making money and helping the world.
Yes it is that simple.
My question is how many people do you hire? How many families are dependent on you paying them their monthly salary? How many children of your workers do you help go to private schools? How many people have you pulled out of poverty?
Monsanto is just a company that offers a product. The problem is that they use the government to get favors. This business/government relationship is the problem. The government should never have anything to offer to a company, be it subsidies, protective tariffs, nothing. Companies should live and die by the product they sell. If it is good, it will sell, and they will live. If it is bad, they won't sell, and well, they will go broke.
Companies become dominant because the government helps them to become so. Amtrak in the USA is a monopoly only because the government allows them to be so; their product sucks. Monsanto gets laws passed that give it an edge over other competitors. Thus they grow bigger. But this ONLY happened because the government got involved. Remove the power of the government and let the market forces take care of it. Let you and I, the consumers, decide on an even playing field what products we think are the best.
Just think about it Yuleno, these BIG companies only survive because of BIG government. You want Monsanto to have good competition, then you have to have smaller government. Monsanto LOVES BIG GOVERNMENT.
What kind of talk is that you posted.Shall we drain the oceans to get rid of pollution.
You are painting a picture with the color you want.Tell me about terminator technology.
Personally I could care less what Monsanto does or doesn't do. I, nor you by the way, are forced to buy their product. Yes it is their product and they can decide to do with it as they please. When Fiat makes a cheap car that doesn't last past 100.000 km, we as customers have the choice to buy that car, knowing full well that it won't last much past 100.000km. Yet millions of Fiat's cars are sold. I guess the customers have decided it is worth it.
If Monsanto had put that terminator gene into practice, some farmers would stop using it, some wouldn't really care. It could have been a good or a bad business decision, but it is their product so who are we to decide for them.
As for draining the ocean, i guess you refer to the elimination of government. I don't advocate anarchy, but instead a small limited government. Government is necessary to protect people's rights; right to life, liberty and property. We citizens can handle the rest. Name me just one thing that the government MUST do because the citizens CAN”T do themselves.
Make law ,protect from invasion,ensure order etc.
On Monsanto.
The idea that a business is a law to itself and that profit justifies its actions are well out .In today's world business has a responsibility to society.To people if you like.So your position that profit justifies the actions is not adequate.A business has to state what it is intending to do and making money is not an intension in the statement it makes.It is assumed that its actions are to make profit.This statement is required by law and therefore a business is inferior to a state.You in your work/business have to conform to law and there is no claim being made that you or Monsanto don't conform.The argument is an ethical one as well as a political one.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!