Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Monsanto said that it respected people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintained that its seeds improved agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources, such as water and energy. [82] The company reiterated that genetically modified foods were safe and improved crop yields. [86]
The case (Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser) went to the Supreme Court which held for Monsanto by a 5‑4 vote in late May 2004. [22] The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer's crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.
Belief that Monsanto is particularly problematic has inspired such actions as the March Against Monsanto and the singling out of Monsanto over other agribusinesses such as DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer, and has been identified as a salient feature of anti-GMO activism. [21] An example of Monsanto-based conspiracy theorizing were the ...
Ever since the introduction of genetically modified crops into the food chain, the tussle has been largely between farmers and Monsanto , which says since 1997 it has filed 145 lawsuits against ...
Agricultural technology has a long history of upsetting consumers. From poisonous insecticides and dead birds to fertilizer runoff, and now genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the companies ...
Monsanto Co. confronts us with the question of whether living things should be subject to patent protection. (The Supreme Court first allowed this in 1980, when the organism in question was a ...
The March Against Monsanto was an international grassroots movement and protest against Monsanto, a producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. [1] The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37 , a ballot initiative which would have required ...
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented. [8] The Court held that a living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952.