QFrom all the corporations combined including Monsanto how many law suits has there been on rural farmers? What exactly is the most common reason for the litigation?

From all the corporations combined including Monsanto how many law suits has there been on rural farmers? What exactly is the most common reason for the litigation?

AExpert Answer

Lawsuits generated by biotech companies against farmers mostly center around patent protection issues. Patents are sought to protect intellectual property rights and are a compensation for the investments in time, work and resources to develop new technologies. Patents, in addition to plant protection certificates,  have been available on seeds and plants in certain countries, such as the United States and Australia, provided that the legal criteria for patentability are met.  Biotech companies sometimes file suit against farmers who intentionally breach their contracts and infringe the patent rights of such companies. However litigation is always a last resort.

 

Lawsuits against biotech companies initiated by farmers generally involve product claims (e.g. non-performance of the seed under extreme weather conditions) or damage claims because traces of unapproved genetically engineered traits were inadvertently found in their crops.

Posted on March 9, 2018
Thanks for the question. I believe you are asking about how corn hybrids are produced. For starters, corn plants have both female (silks and cobs) and male parts (tassels). This means that in a field of corn, any plant can fertilize any other plant (hybrid), including itself (inbred).   Breeders create new hybrids by cross pollinating genetics of a specific male inbred (plants with uniform performance) with a specific female inbred. This is done by planting one row of the male... Read More
Answer:
Posted on May 4, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on May 4, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More