Talk:Percy Schmeiser

What is this apologist crap? The story is told in a completely pro-GMO way, for no good reason. How many other articles do we have shilling for this company? ħuman 07:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, this article is actually accurate. However, I question whether or not it is actually on-mission. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Schmeiser is a widely known proponent of bullshit about GMOs, so I think this is as on-mission as articles about televangelists and psychics. --Tweenk (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: Human, please do read the link to the court proceedings and tell me how is this article "pro-GMO" as opposed to just stating the facts of the guy's case. --Tweenk (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

'Round up ready'

Just a little pointer, when you do not know what Roundup Ready seeds are, the entire article becomes very confusing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.15.107.243 / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 23:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Terrible article

It's extremely biased and states that the farmer had absolutely no case - which is not true according to the wikipedia entry with citations. Was this written by someone who works for Bayer? Jesus. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ajuran / talk / contribs}

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology.[1] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.[2]

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.[21][22] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[2]

Wha? Also, hilarious, but unoriginal rhetorical question. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)