Edit - Can’t reply again looks like but to the response below, yes many view this approach as effectively leading to enforcing what you state. Which is why it is so horribly underhanded to me, and seeing supporting narratives in hackernews was striking.
No, it doesn't. From their "commitment" [1] which was affirmed by the courts as binding in a 2010s court case (Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass'n v. Monsanto):
> We do not exercise our patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.
> where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.
That sounds like a very hollow commitment to me. Who defines what "trace" is. Monsanto?
And what is the normal cross pollination rate from doing nothing. 1% 5%? It sounds like it just means we won't sue you the first year, we'll wait until the second year then sue you.
The practice needs to be banned. It's Monsanto seeds that are spreading their genetics in the wind. If they don't want that, then make crops that can't. If they're unable to, then tough.
Saying nobody within pollination range can grow their own crops anymore once someone nearby purchases Monsanto seeds is absurd.
That's all aside from the fact that patenting things that reproduce still is somewhat of a weak concept to begin with.
Putting an absurd tech spin on it. If you made a robot/machinr that could replicate itself sure patent it. If you made a robot that sent out radio waves and every machine within receiving distance could/would suddenly replicate, you can't sue those owners for "stealing your technology".
The proof is in the pudding. To my knowledge Monsanto has never sued anyone over inadvertent cross contamination regardless of the percentages. The cases where they have sued were farmers who explicitly went out and got Roundup resistant seeds to use with Roundup from unlicensed vendors or in violation of a license they themselves signed with Monsanto.
It has never made any sense for them to enforce it against cross contamination because farmers don't want the seeds if they're not already nuking everything with glyphosate. They either buy F1 seeds every year for the extra yield hybrid vigor gives them or they save seed that's somewhat optimized for their growing conditions.
> Saying nobody within pollination range can grow their own crops anymore once someone nearby purchases Monsanto seeds is absurd.
This is a fantasy you have concocted, not the reality.
1. Bowman buys Monsanto soybeans as seeds agreeing to not replant the soybean harvest.
2. Bowman sells the soybean harvest to a food wholesaler who sells to retailers who sells to consumers for consumption.
3. Bowman buys soybeans back from that same food wholesaler (who normally only sells for consumption) intending to replant those food soybeans (which is abnormal).
4. Bowman then tests the seeds he bought to verify which ones were the ones he sold which had the Monsanto modifications (or his neighbors who were also using Monsanto seeds with the same contract) and which he was not allowed to replant as per the contract in 1.
5. Bowman then only replants the ones with the modifications and uses Roundup in those fields.
6. Bowman then repeatedly saves and replants seeds from that crop to amplify their quantity of modified crop and purchases more seeds from the food wholesaler.
It was about as premeditated and intentional a contract violation as you can get.
There have been court cases, but in most cases, they weren't simply "innocent farmer happened to grow IP-infringing crop simply due to being near a farm that used GMO crops and cross-pollinating by accident".
