Talk:Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

Page Edits

Great article so far, and I think this is an important case. I just saw one or two spelling edits I corrected, hope that is OK. I had a couple other ideas that might help, take em or leave 'em - in that first paragraph maybe end with the final results so it acts as a brief summary. Expand a little about what is needed for "injury" for standing. define acronyms in the beginning - we have not done this well in our article and need to clean it up for final copy. Maybe expand on the implications for Organic industry, biologically (hybridization talked about briefly) and economically - how much $$$ is at stake. You have done a great job bringing out the main points of the case! Nice. Gbfalcone (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating case folks. I fixed a minor grammatical oversight. Ckgurney (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you know

This article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created or significantly (5x) expanded.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code if you created a new article:

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

or this code if you expanded it

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=expanded | author= }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So who won?

I have a PhD in engineering, but I can't understand this text. For the sake of the layman, could someone please add a few sentences at the beginning which summarizes the decision and the status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.29.182 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think several commentators in the newspapers at the time commented that neither side had won. However, in my opinion, Monsanto did. The Supreme court struck down the lower court's total injunction on planting GM alfalfa unless there was clear evidence of irreparable harm. This decision was quoted in Monsanto's favour, for example, in the GM sugar beet case and allowed Monsanto to keep selling GM sugar beet, albeit under controlled conditions. On the other hand the requirement to do an eye-watering amount of research to bring a new GM crop to the market and get it deregulated still stands. I agree the lead is crap. It goes into a lot of unnecessary detail, talks about Geerston and others filing suit (but doesn't mention this was at the lower court level), makes no mention of Monsanto and others filing suit at the Supreme Court level and doesn't mention the result. If I get the time, I'll try to rewrite it.SylviaStanley (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a simplified lead.Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:2010 in the environment

At 02:49, 12 May 2014, I added Category:2010 in the environment, using the edit summary "adding: Category:2010 in the environment". At 02:59, 12 May 2014, Jytdog undid my revision, using the edit summary "Undid revision 608162861 by Wavelength (talk) has nothing to do with environment that i can see; please discuss on Talk. thx".
(1) In the version of 02:59, 12 May 2014, the (case-insensitive) character string environment occurs 17 times, and the (case-insensitive) character string environmental occurs 15 times. The lawsuit involved an environmental impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, a United States environmental law.
(2) Category:2010 in the environment has this introduction: "These articles relate to the human impact on the environment that occurred in 2010. They relate to environmental law, conservation, environmentalism and environmental issues."
(3) Even though the verdict favored Monsanto, the lawsuit involved environmental law and the other criteria, and therefore the article does meet all the four specified criteria for inclusion in the category. (I understand that meeting any one criterion is sufficient.)
—Wavelength (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

thank you for talking! on its face, the case is about scope of patent law, and ultimately about the economics of agriculture (does a patent on a self-replicating organism cover subsequent generations of that organism, and can a farmer use a patented seed without paying a royalty) and on the face of it has nothing to do with environmental effects of GMOs. can you please cite a reliable source that said that the substance of this case had anything to do with environmental impact? thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) objection withdrawn, i am an idiot. thanks for talking! i will self-revert in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Center for Food Safety

Hey all, I'm currently cleaning up the POV-laden mess that is the Center for Food Safety page. It's full of a lot of unsubstantiated claims, many of which link to citations that don't hold up to Wikipedia:Verifiability at all.

Among the many claims in the article is that the Center for Food Safety was involved in initiating the Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms case. The source provided for this claim in the Center for Food Safety article links over to this one, and the source contained in this article links to the video blog Cooking Up a Story. Without even going into the merits of this video blog site as a reliable source, a brief check of the article shows no explanation of the claim by the writers. The only connection I have found is the court case Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack. Although this case referenced Monsanto v. Geertson, it contains no direct legal connection it.

For this reason I'll be removing the Center for Food Safety from this page as an involved party in the dispute. Sorry if this seems like a lot of info for one small change, but I have a feeling the articles I'm cleaning up have some ideological parties involved who may not take kindly to the edits. Cheers.

71.11.102.128 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

see the appeal decision, which makes it clear that CFS was one of the parties that filed for the injunction against the APHIS decision to deregulate GM alfalfa. Jytdog (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)