As detailed by the "Farmers' Guide to GMOs," the Technology Agreement also requires that any legal proceedings against Monsanto by farmers from any state be heard in Missouri, Monsanto's home state, and also gives Monsanto the right to look at all the book-keeping records kept by farmers, and to inspect their crops at any time. Software geeks like to complain about the extreme restrictions put in place by the "end user license agreements" that come with software programs, but they are as nothing to the intrusive powers seized by Monsanto through its contract terms.

Actually, software EULAs have contained provisions like this for decades. Nearly every EULA in the world today allows the licensor to inspect the licensee's inventory of hardware and software, or audit their financial records. Most also state that the licensee accepts the software "as is", and the licensor is not responsible for any defects. The limits they place on the licensee's legal remedies border on the absurd; requiring a specific jurisdiction is only the start of it — Microsoft's EULA (in-)famously limits the damages for which it is responsible to the purchase price of the software.

What if I'm that organic farmer sitting next door to a farmer using Monsanto GMO corn seed? If enough pollen gets blown onto my field, and my crop is ruined, the license agreement that my neighbor may have signed should still be irrelevant. I can always sue my neighbor for damages, just as if my neighbor's blacksmithing shop started a fire on my property by throwing sparks. But could I sue Monsanto for creating a product that they know throws sparks over the property line?

Its hard to tell from the context, but maybe this is the right thing. If farmers using GM crops become responsible for the leak of their IP, a viable option is to stop using these odious products.

Of course, that's mostly just wishful thinking on my part.

And people pay for this liability why...? Seriously, even if you do want the crop, why not just plant some corn downwind from somebody who did? If pollen happens to blow into your property without your control, do you magically owe money to Monsanto for the inconvenience?

While I don't buy into the widespread idea that these crops are poisonous, the contortions of profiteering and lack of choice are more than a little out of hand. A decision that affects a wide swath of territory (and people) cannot be fairly made by one constituent; it should be a group - i.e. democratic - decision whether to let it in or keep it out.

" If GM crops are so safe, what's the big worry?"

I don't think France, as a whole, is really of that opinion in the first place.

Pyrian,

If Monsanto figures that you knowingly harvested gm corn pollinated from someone else's crops, they will come after you on patent infringement grounds. This is no joke. A Canadian farmer, Schmeiser, discovered that corn on his organic farm near a neighbors GM farm was resistant to roundup he had been spraying to control weeds. He saved the seed and replanted it, Monsanto found out, sued him, and won every round right up to and including the Canadian Supreme Court. Schmeiser's downfall was that he had knowingly saved the seed and replanted it.

So, if you want the seed, you have to take the liability. If you don't want the contamination, your only option is try to sue the farmer who contaminated you. It really is a mess.

Andrew Leonard,

Thanks for pointing me to the Schmeiser case. I find it more than a little disturbing; it effectively makes pollution the responsibility of the polluted rather than the polluter (at least in Canada). It re-affirms my opinion that anything that affects a wide area must be directly regulated by, at the very least, representatives of the area in question.

The temptation for abuse is interesting. I could, for instance, write a virus which includes patented code, and then sue everybody with an infected computer for infringement. Is that any different?

Mr. Hehir asks: "How is it possible that the manufacturers of genetically modified organisms can escape liability for their products' contamination of non-G.M. crops, when it is impossible to plant such crops without contamination occurring?"

First, if anyone is liable for the damages that genetically modifying crops can cause, it should be the enterprises that introduce genetic modifications. If they did not do that, then no adverse consequences would ensue (nor would any benefit, such as it may be). Since they _have_ modified, and continue to modify, the genome of the crops which serve as our food, the food for our food animals, and for fiber, etc., then these people and organizations that do so MUST shoulder the liability for the consequences of their actions. Else, there is no justice. Those who introduce the risks profit, but attempt, whether successfully, to transfer adverse consequences to others.

There is always some risk that genetic modifications will find their way into crops whose genome has not been deliberately modified. Perhaps the only way to truly reduce that risk to the minimum is to require that G.M. crops be grown only indoors, in greenhouses that have a negative atmospheric pressure and other measures to prevent G.M. pollen and other plant parts from escaping into the world at large. If the cost to build and operate such facilities make it infeasible to grow G.M. crops, then that is an admission that the worth of their benefits does not exceed their true costs.

Is why do we need it at all?

There is no shortage of food production today. There is no need for GM. What we are doing is shaping nature to conform to our legal system. That is patently (sic) absurd. We don't know the dangers. And the motive is purely profit.

I tend to think that nothing less than a revolution will be the outcome, as the current state apparatus is a puppet of corporations like Monsanto yet the people roundly despise these outcomes. When the gov. and the people are at extreme odds, that is when sparks can fly.