https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
That bit in India also sounds horrible.
That's a lot of 'seems' that ignores that last hundred years or so modern farming and the case law around seed patents that has existed since the 30s.
> As children, before we're taught economics, we learn farmers plant seeds to grow corn to feed us. Suing the farmer for planting seeds hurts this very basic role we learned as kids.
Generally anytime someone's argument is based around an appeal to emotions, you can be they aren't dealing with reality and logical thinking. Doubly so when you're talking about planting corn when discussing a case about canola.
In practice it became impossible to keep BT corn out of the food supply. With corn as a staple crop and the international trade in corn everyone on the planet became a test case.
There was controversy on the impact of corn pollen on non-target species, including monarchs and lady-birds/lady bugs and bees. Follow-up studies didn’t show significant impact in quantities likely to be encountered in the field.
All GMs have risk of pollen drift and the risk of gene spread. Farmers growing non-BT corn for export may have their crops rejected in some markets if contaminated. Corn cross pollinates with a genetic ancestor of corn in South America which is considered a weed because it can cause domestic corn kernels to not develop properly. There is some risk of gene transfer and creating a “super” weed.
https://ejbpc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41938-018-0...