There was a Canadian farmer who went exactly that route against (iirc) Monsanto, saying that their GMO Rapeseed (again, from memory) had contaminated his crop, but Monsanto sued him anyway for "illegally" growing their GMO stuff. I believe he "won" in the end. But at what cost to him?
In that case the farmer was also specifically selecting for the contaminated seeds. That makes the "his crops got accidentally contaminated and monsanto sued him for it" narrative very misleading.
As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[5] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
Sounds like a smart farmer. Let’s pretend that the original resistant crop was natural, his actions are normal. Selecting good crops is basic farming. He was a victim here.
Comments
Are you talking about this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
In that case the farmer was also specifically selecting for the contaminated seeds. That makes the "his crops got accidentally contaminated and monsanto sued him for it" narrative very misleading.
Sounds like a smart farmer. Let’s pretend that the original resistant crop was natural, his actions are normal. Selecting good crops is basic farming. He was a victim here.