The True Wrath of the "Monsanstrosity"
“With Monsanto, you’re guilty until proven innocent.”
-- David Brumback, soybean farmer
Monsanto’s utter control of the agricultural industry through possession of agrochemical patents has spurred imbalanced and unjust judicial sentencing of innocent American farmers and seed cleaners. While our food system didn’t originate as such a monopoly, the series of events following the legalization of genetical property patenting only led to this inevitable modern-day agricultural horror. Included in this wake of devastation were the ideas of subsidies (or governmental funding of a specific crop) and the industrial food system (a system derived from the practices of widespread distribution and mass production). These factors ultimately set into motion the downfall of the food system as we knew it.
Agriculture used to be a simple industry. A sizable chunk of our population consisted of farmers, all of whom operated local, multicultural farms that could provide for the community. Most importantly, the power belonged to the people-- the cultivation process was individualized, specifically chosen seeds were saved for the next year, and most everyone got along with each other.
However, that all changed in the year 1980, when the legality of patenting living organisms came into question and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it as legal. This dispute has been ongoing since at least 1930 (“Development of the Seed Patent System”). The Supreme Court’s reasoning, according to Chief Justice Warren Burger, was that the “relevant distinction is not between animate and inanimate things but whether living products could be seen as human-made inventions.” (qtd. in “Patents on Life”) Since then, what started as a revolutionary idea has morphed into an entirely new approach on agriculture.
Ever since Monsanto, currently the agrochemical and biotechnology industrial conglomerate, first patented a plant cell in 1982, the entire farming culture has gone south (“Food, Inc. Movie and Seed Patents”). A sort of snowball effect ensued-- once it was legal to patent plant genes, Monsanto had a field day, qualifying for patents left and right while producing genetically modified crops that could be mass produced quite easily. The government, recognizing these technological advancements as an opportunity to bring convenience to the farming industry, began subsidizing the patented GMO crops. As soon as the subsidies became involved, our beautiful, almost flawless original farming system was replaced with monoculture farming systems that only produced Monsanto crops, because those were the crops that made the farmers all the money. Because of this, as of 2009, Monsanto’s patented genes are present in around 95% of all American soybeans and around 80% of all American corn. (“Monsanto Uses Patent Law to Control Most of U.S. Corn, Soy Seed Market”)
At least, that was the idea. What the farmers didn’t know was the price they would all eventually pay for their switch to the Monsanto side of the farming force. Who would have thought that as Monsanto slowly conquered the industry, they would destroy the lives of any farmers who saved patented seed or was involved in any activity contrary to an incredibly serious stewardship agreement. Monsanto itself comments on this in the “Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits” portion of their website: “Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States.” Of those 145, eleven cases were pursued through trial. Monsanto won on all eleven accounts. The losing sides of the cases are publicly denounced for their wrongdoings on the company’s website. Six instances are specifically listed, while others are referenced throughout most lawsuit explanations.
While the farmers under a corporate thumb are kept busy with their “unlawful activities” and the turning-in of their neighbors on the patent infringement hotline, Monsanto is infesting Washington, lobbying for anything and everything that brings them more power and money. Innocent people are being sued for all they are worth, laws are being made in protection of Monsanto, and it seems that no one is lifting a finger to stop it (“Food Democracy Now”).
“What was formerly a free, renewable resource had now become a privatized commodity. Current patent regimes impact not only the historical fundamental right to save seeds, but, ultimately, the right and access to food.”
-- Debbie Barker, Save our Seeds Program Director
Given time, Monsanto grew to monopolize the seed and pesticide fields, eventually receiving patents for over 400 different plant types. Their seeds, which were genetically engineered to make them “resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) and contain other desirable traits such as pest resistance and drought tolerance.” (“Why Does Monsanto Patent Seeds? Part 1”) Nothing goes wrong until you factor in the farmers, which is somewhat an issue, because the farmers are the ones who make Monsanto its money.
In some cases, a legal investigation starts when a farmer mistakes Monsanto’s patented seeds for their own, as there isn’t much visible difference. In other cases, mistaken identity leaves farmers in a court battle with Monsanto over a crime they didn’t commit (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”). On all accounts, though, Monsanto takes advantage of the disproportionate power of the system and wields threats of lawsuits, fines, and humiliation on innocent people.
All of these atrocities are present in the circumstance of the Pilot Grove Co-op, a small farming operation in Missouri. Before the Co-op was brought into a negative light, Monsanto had already accosted another community member of the same area. In 2002, a convenience store owner by the name of Gary Rinehart was confronted by one of Monsanto’s many private investigators who advised him not to fight Monsanto in the imminent legal battle. This should have been very intimidating, but Rinehart was more on the confused side, as he did not operate a farm, did not sell seeds, and had had no prior association with the company at all. According to him, “It was a case of mistaken identity.” (qtd. in “Monsanto Patent Fight Ensnares Missouri Farm Town”)
Why, then, was the case taken to federal court, and why was Rinehart sued? Though “Monsanto’s primary reason for enforcing its patents is to ensure a level playing field for the vast majority of honest farmers who abide by their agreements, and to discourage using technology illegally to gain an unfair advantage,” (“Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits”) it seems that even the patent violators have achieved no level playing field at all, seeing as a Center for Food Safety study in 2007 estimated Monsanto’s patent infringement settlements to collectively be between $107 million and $186 million before and after trial.
It took two years for Monsanto to move on from Gary Rinehart and instead target the Pilot Grove Co-op. Those two years meant virtually nothing in comparison to the resulting four year conflict that began in 2004, when the Co-op was anonymously turned in via the patent infringement hotline, and ended in 2008, when the group was forced to deposit $275,000 into a Monsanto-based account. The company could do whatever it pleased with the money, although it was claimed to have gone to scholarship funding and youth development organizations. (“Pilot Grove Co-op”)
The owners of the Pilot Grove Co-op did not at all assume that their actions would wield such consequences. However, evidence collected through private investigators, video surveillance, a toll-free hotline, and the “seed police” (a specialized branch of Monsanto dealing with all things patent infringement), ensured otherwise. The entire town of Pilot Grove was affected by the onslaught, as 144 of the co-op’s customers were sought after for their purchase records.
While these strenuous efforts definitely paid off in getting Monsanto its money, the $275,000 fine paled in comparison to the priciest settlement of similar conditions-- a group in North Carolina that was sued over $3.05 million. In the case of a Canadian canola grower, monetary compensation was demanded by Monsanto even after it conceded that patented seeds had been accidentally scattered over the non-patented canola fields. But the repercussions of crossing Monsanto have even extended beyond financial attack. A farmer in Tennessee received an eight month prison sentence for his benevolent activities.
I find that the most heartbreaking instance, however, of Monsanto triumphing over the benign in patent-related lawsuits, is that of Maurice Parr, a seventy-four-year-old seed cleaner in Lafayette, Indiana. After an attempt at farming, he turned to the seed cleaning business, and cleaned seeds of all varieties for the farmers of the area. What his job entailed was getting hired by farmers to separate debris from the seeds in order for them to be replanted properly. To clarify, Maurice only cleans the seeds-- he has no way to tell if the seeds he is cleaning are patented or not, as Roundup Ready® products look tremendously similar to generic ones. (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”) As any and all seed cleaners threaten Monsanto’s income from annually repurchased seeds, Mr. Parr soon appeared on Monsanto’s “seed police” radar in a very bad way.
Almost immediately after Monsanto discovered Mr. Parr’s seed cleaning operation, his bank records were secretly subpoenaed, or forced into legal inspection. His customers were subjected to threatening phone calls, causing him to become negatively regarded throughout his community (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”). As Parr describes the experience, “It really broke my heart. You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning.”
To add insult to injury, on Monsanto’s website, Mr. Parr’s case is regarded so pejoratively, it extends for an entire page. The derogation mostly consists of accusations that Parr’s tale is entirely false: “Mr. Parr has been less than transparent in describing his experience.” Despite the opposition’s argument that such insults sacrifice the company’s professionalism, still there are jabs at Parr. Specifically, they point out his neglect of some of the most crucial parts of the story, including a permanent injunction issued to him by the United States District Court that served as a prohibition against the cleaning of patented soybeans and affidavits (or written evidence for use in court) from locals verifying that Mr. Parr confused and mislead his customers regarding the clear patent law information originally presented to him (“Moe Parr”).
After the ensuing court battle, Maurice Parr finally had to cease fighting, as the legal process had drained him of a large sum of money. While he wasn’t sued substantially, Monsanto had done its job in utterly demolishing his livelihood. The effects of their wrath extended even beyond one man-- because “now four states, including Indiana, prohibit seed suppliers from entering a farmer’s property without a state agent, tactics which have threatened a way of life” (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”).
As these cases clearly prove, while Monsanto claims to protect the industry by keeping things “fair” for honest farmers, all they really do is leech money from the innocent. The monetary advantage it has over smaller organizations and individuals has only grown as it wins more and more legal battles, leaving our food system in absolute shambles. To improve our current situation, we must eradicate this Monsanstrosity completely by raising awareness of the terrible we as a nation have grown to accept as the norm. America needs a fresh start-- one that can only be generated from the ruins up.
WORKS CITED
"2012 Farm Subsidy Database." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 04 Jan. 2011. Web. 03 May 2013.
This source tells the story of Maurice Parr, a major subject of my essay. It includes some pertinent quotes of his and a detailed account of similar situations. This was important to me because a major piece of my essay revolves around the cases of wronged local farmers and seed cleaners. The story of Maurice Parr fit very well under this heading.
"Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog » Blog Archive » Biotech Rider Undermines U.S. Food Security." Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog » Blog Archive » Biotech Rider Undermines U.S. Food Security. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Center for Food Safety | Issues | Seeds." Center for Food Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Food Democracy Now." Food Democracy Now RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
This source was especially helpful because it was created by an organization absolutely against Monsanto’s control, which was unique because the majority of the information I collected about Monsanto’s policies was from Monsanto itself. The website really clearly provided the other side of the argument, which was fantastic. Although what was supposed to be Monsanto’s supporting evidence worked really well in my favor, it was helpful to have an organization blatantly on the same side I was arguing to provide some important points. Evidence supporting some more potent claims of mine could be found throughout this source.
"Grain." Combined. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
An organization called Grain produced this source, which consisted of the specifics of the Pilot Grove Co-op’s legal battle against Monsanto. Since this case was the first I went over in my writing, the information the source provided fit very well into my essay. Since a quote found in this source proved to be very relevant to my topic, it was included as well. Overall, this was one of the most important sources I used during the writing process.
"Help Us Kill the "Monsanto Protection Act" For Good." Center for Food Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"'Monsanto Protection Act' to Be Voted on by Congress - Take Action Now to Fight Back against Biotech Tyranny." NaturalNews. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Monsanto Statement Regarding Farmer Assurance Provision in H.R.933." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"News & Views." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
The “News and Views” section of the Monsanto website is where I originally found the two cases of patent lawsuits I used in my writing. While the evidence of this source was supposed to be favorable of Monsanto, it served as perfect “incriminating evidence” for my paper. With its contradictory claims and outrageous philosophies, I found the Monsanto website, especially this portion, to be one of my most beneficial sources. The abundance of information and twisted viewpoint provided perspective.
"Northeast Ohio." The Plain Dealer. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
This article outlines how very much controlled the agricultural industry is by Monsanto. They elaborate on the statistical evidence backing this topic, and include many solid facts that I found very useful to me when writing my essay. I found this source to be one of utmost importance for its specificity and reasonable claims. I used it to gather concrete evidence to put in my paper.
"Patents on Life." Greenpeace International. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
In “Patents on Life,” Greenpeace gives a suitable explanation of genetical patenting, and alludes to the restrictive consequences associated with it. A consequence that is highlighted is how exploited the patents are by agricultural industry, which is primarily how this information fits into my essay. Accompanying this is a brief history of living organisms’ history with the U.S. Supreme Court. As is very relevant to my topic, the concepts of bioprospecting and biopiracy are explained in detail.
"Products." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Understanding the “biotech Rider”." Brownfield. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"USDA Celebrates 150 Years." U.S. Department of Agriculture. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Why Does Monsanto Patent Seeds? Part 1." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
-- David Brumback, soybean farmer
Monsanto’s utter control of the agricultural industry through possession of agrochemical patents has spurred imbalanced and unjust judicial sentencing of innocent American farmers and seed cleaners. While our food system didn’t originate as such a monopoly, the series of events following the legalization of genetical property patenting only led to this inevitable modern-day agricultural horror. Included in this wake of devastation were the ideas of subsidies (or governmental funding of a specific crop) and the industrial food system (a system derived from the practices of widespread distribution and mass production). These factors ultimately set into motion the downfall of the food system as we knew it.
Agriculture used to be a simple industry. A sizable chunk of our population consisted of farmers, all of whom operated local, multicultural farms that could provide for the community. Most importantly, the power belonged to the people-- the cultivation process was individualized, specifically chosen seeds were saved for the next year, and most everyone got along with each other.
However, that all changed in the year 1980, when the legality of patenting living organisms came into question and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it as legal. This dispute has been ongoing since at least 1930 (“Development of the Seed Patent System”). The Supreme Court’s reasoning, according to Chief Justice Warren Burger, was that the “relevant distinction is not between animate and inanimate things but whether living products could be seen as human-made inventions.” (qtd. in “Patents on Life”) Since then, what started as a revolutionary idea has morphed into an entirely new approach on agriculture.
Ever since Monsanto, currently the agrochemical and biotechnology industrial conglomerate, first patented a plant cell in 1982, the entire farming culture has gone south (“Food, Inc. Movie and Seed Patents”). A sort of snowball effect ensued-- once it was legal to patent plant genes, Monsanto had a field day, qualifying for patents left and right while producing genetically modified crops that could be mass produced quite easily. The government, recognizing these technological advancements as an opportunity to bring convenience to the farming industry, began subsidizing the patented GMO crops. As soon as the subsidies became involved, our beautiful, almost flawless original farming system was replaced with monoculture farming systems that only produced Monsanto crops, because those were the crops that made the farmers all the money. Because of this, as of 2009, Monsanto’s patented genes are present in around 95% of all American soybeans and around 80% of all American corn. (“Monsanto Uses Patent Law to Control Most of U.S. Corn, Soy Seed Market”)
At least, that was the idea. What the farmers didn’t know was the price they would all eventually pay for their switch to the Monsanto side of the farming force. Who would have thought that as Monsanto slowly conquered the industry, they would destroy the lives of any farmers who saved patented seed or was involved in any activity contrary to an incredibly serious stewardship agreement. Monsanto itself comments on this in the “Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits” portion of their website: “Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States.” Of those 145, eleven cases were pursued through trial. Monsanto won on all eleven accounts. The losing sides of the cases are publicly denounced for their wrongdoings on the company’s website. Six instances are specifically listed, while others are referenced throughout most lawsuit explanations.
While the farmers under a corporate thumb are kept busy with their “unlawful activities” and the turning-in of their neighbors on the patent infringement hotline, Monsanto is infesting Washington, lobbying for anything and everything that brings them more power and money. Innocent people are being sued for all they are worth, laws are being made in protection of Monsanto, and it seems that no one is lifting a finger to stop it (“Food Democracy Now”).
“What was formerly a free, renewable resource had now become a privatized commodity. Current patent regimes impact not only the historical fundamental right to save seeds, but, ultimately, the right and access to food.”
-- Debbie Barker, Save our Seeds Program Director
Given time, Monsanto grew to monopolize the seed and pesticide fields, eventually receiving patents for over 400 different plant types. Their seeds, which were genetically engineered to make them “resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) and contain other desirable traits such as pest resistance and drought tolerance.” (“Why Does Monsanto Patent Seeds? Part 1”) Nothing goes wrong until you factor in the farmers, which is somewhat an issue, because the farmers are the ones who make Monsanto its money.
In some cases, a legal investigation starts when a farmer mistakes Monsanto’s patented seeds for their own, as there isn’t much visible difference. In other cases, mistaken identity leaves farmers in a court battle with Monsanto over a crime they didn’t commit (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”). On all accounts, though, Monsanto takes advantage of the disproportionate power of the system and wields threats of lawsuits, fines, and humiliation on innocent people.
All of these atrocities are present in the circumstance of the Pilot Grove Co-op, a small farming operation in Missouri. Before the Co-op was brought into a negative light, Monsanto had already accosted another community member of the same area. In 2002, a convenience store owner by the name of Gary Rinehart was confronted by one of Monsanto’s many private investigators who advised him not to fight Monsanto in the imminent legal battle. This should have been very intimidating, but Rinehart was more on the confused side, as he did not operate a farm, did not sell seeds, and had had no prior association with the company at all. According to him, “It was a case of mistaken identity.” (qtd. in “Monsanto Patent Fight Ensnares Missouri Farm Town”)
Why, then, was the case taken to federal court, and why was Rinehart sued? Though “Monsanto’s primary reason for enforcing its patents is to ensure a level playing field for the vast majority of honest farmers who abide by their agreements, and to discourage using technology illegally to gain an unfair advantage,” (“Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits”) it seems that even the patent violators have achieved no level playing field at all, seeing as a Center for Food Safety study in 2007 estimated Monsanto’s patent infringement settlements to collectively be between $107 million and $186 million before and after trial.
It took two years for Monsanto to move on from Gary Rinehart and instead target the Pilot Grove Co-op. Those two years meant virtually nothing in comparison to the resulting four year conflict that began in 2004, when the Co-op was anonymously turned in via the patent infringement hotline, and ended in 2008, when the group was forced to deposit $275,000 into a Monsanto-based account. The company could do whatever it pleased with the money, although it was claimed to have gone to scholarship funding and youth development organizations. (“Pilot Grove Co-op”)
The owners of the Pilot Grove Co-op did not at all assume that their actions would wield such consequences. However, evidence collected through private investigators, video surveillance, a toll-free hotline, and the “seed police” (a specialized branch of Monsanto dealing with all things patent infringement), ensured otherwise. The entire town of Pilot Grove was affected by the onslaught, as 144 of the co-op’s customers were sought after for their purchase records.
While these strenuous efforts definitely paid off in getting Monsanto its money, the $275,000 fine paled in comparison to the priciest settlement of similar conditions-- a group in North Carolina that was sued over $3.05 million. In the case of a Canadian canola grower, monetary compensation was demanded by Monsanto even after it conceded that patented seeds had been accidentally scattered over the non-patented canola fields. But the repercussions of crossing Monsanto have even extended beyond financial attack. A farmer in Tennessee received an eight month prison sentence for his benevolent activities.
I find that the most heartbreaking instance, however, of Monsanto triumphing over the benign in patent-related lawsuits, is that of Maurice Parr, a seventy-four-year-old seed cleaner in Lafayette, Indiana. After an attempt at farming, he turned to the seed cleaning business, and cleaned seeds of all varieties for the farmers of the area. What his job entailed was getting hired by farmers to separate debris from the seeds in order for them to be replanted properly. To clarify, Maurice only cleans the seeds-- he has no way to tell if the seeds he is cleaning are patented or not, as Roundup Ready® products look tremendously similar to generic ones. (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”) As any and all seed cleaners threaten Monsanto’s income from annually repurchased seeds, Mr. Parr soon appeared on Monsanto’s “seed police” radar in a very bad way.
Almost immediately after Monsanto discovered Mr. Parr’s seed cleaning operation, his bank records were secretly subpoenaed, or forced into legal inspection. His customers were subjected to threatening phone calls, causing him to become negatively regarded throughout his community (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”). As Parr describes the experience, “It really broke my heart. You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning.”
To add insult to injury, on Monsanto’s website, Mr. Parr’s case is regarded so pejoratively, it extends for an entire page. The derogation mostly consists of accusations that Parr’s tale is entirely false: “Mr. Parr has been less than transparent in describing his experience.” Despite the opposition’s argument that such insults sacrifice the company’s professionalism, still there are jabs at Parr. Specifically, they point out his neglect of some of the most crucial parts of the story, including a permanent injunction issued to him by the United States District Court that served as a prohibition against the cleaning of patented soybeans and affidavits (or written evidence for use in court) from locals verifying that Mr. Parr confused and mislead his customers regarding the clear patent law information originally presented to him (“Moe Parr”).
After the ensuing court battle, Maurice Parr finally had to cease fighting, as the legal process had drained him of a large sum of money. While he wasn’t sued substantially, Monsanto had done its job in utterly demolishing his livelihood. The effects of their wrath extended even beyond one man-- because “now four states, including Indiana, prohibit seed suppliers from entering a farmer’s property without a state agent, tactics which have threatened a way of life” (“Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers”).
As these cases clearly prove, while Monsanto claims to protect the industry by keeping things “fair” for honest farmers, all they really do is leech money from the innocent. The monetary advantage it has over smaller organizations and individuals has only grown as it wins more and more legal battles, leaving our food system in absolute shambles. To improve our current situation, we must eradicate this Monsanstrosity completely by raising awareness of the terrible we as a nation have grown to accept as the norm. America needs a fresh start-- one that can only be generated from the ruins up.
WORKS CITED
"2012 Farm Subsidy Database." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 04 Jan. 2011. Web. 03 May 2013.
This source tells the story of Maurice Parr, a major subject of my essay. It includes some pertinent quotes of his and a detailed account of similar situations. This was important to me because a major piece of my essay revolves around the cases of wronged local farmers and seed cleaners. The story of Maurice Parr fit very well under this heading.
"Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog » Blog Archive » Biotech Rider Undermines U.S. Food Security." Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog » Blog Archive » Biotech Rider Undermines U.S. Food Security. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Center for Food Safety | Issues | Seeds." Center for Food Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Food Democracy Now." Food Democracy Now RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
This source was especially helpful because it was created by an organization absolutely against Monsanto’s control, which was unique because the majority of the information I collected about Monsanto’s policies was from Monsanto itself. The website really clearly provided the other side of the argument, which was fantastic. Although what was supposed to be Monsanto’s supporting evidence worked really well in my favor, it was helpful to have an organization blatantly on the same side I was arguing to provide some important points. Evidence supporting some more potent claims of mine could be found throughout this source.
"Grain." Combined. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
An organization called Grain produced this source, which consisted of the specifics of the Pilot Grove Co-op’s legal battle against Monsanto. Since this case was the first I went over in my writing, the information the source provided fit very well into my essay. Since a quote found in this source proved to be very relevant to my topic, it was included as well. Overall, this was one of the most important sources I used during the writing process.
"Help Us Kill the "Monsanto Protection Act" For Good." Center for Food Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"'Monsanto Protection Act' to Be Voted on by Congress - Take Action Now to Fight Back against Biotech Tyranny." NaturalNews. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Monsanto Statement Regarding Farmer Assurance Provision in H.R.933." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"News & Views." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
The “News and Views” section of the Monsanto website is where I originally found the two cases of patent lawsuits I used in my writing. While the evidence of this source was supposed to be favorable of Monsanto, it served as perfect “incriminating evidence” for my paper. With its contradictory claims and outrageous philosophies, I found the Monsanto website, especially this portion, to be one of my most beneficial sources. The abundance of information and twisted viewpoint provided perspective.
"Northeast Ohio." The Plain Dealer. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
This article outlines how very much controlled the agricultural industry is by Monsanto. They elaborate on the statistical evidence backing this topic, and include many solid facts that I found very useful to me when writing my essay. I found this source to be one of utmost importance for its specificity and reasonable claims. I used it to gather concrete evidence to put in my paper.
"Patents on Life." Greenpeace International. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
In “Patents on Life,” Greenpeace gives a suitable explanation of genetical patenting, and alludes to the restrictive consequences associated with it. A consequence that is highlighted is how exploited the patents are by agricultural industry, which is primarily how this information fits into my essay. Accompanying this is a brief history of living organisms’ history with the U.S. Supreme Court. As is very relevant to my topic, the concepts of bioprospecting and biopiracy are explained in detail.
"Products." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Understanding the “biotech Rider”." Brownfield. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"USDA Celebrates 150 Years." U.S. Department of Agriculture. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
"Why Does Monsanto Patent Seeds? Part 1." Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.