Burpee Sale

Through tomorrow there is no shipping charge. Use the promo code FS146 at checkout. There were a couple of seeds I can't usually find around here so it was a good chance to get them without paying half again for shipping.
--
USA
North Carolina Foothills
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would never spend a penny with Burpee/Monsanto.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ioa.com says...

http://www.savingtheworldinmysparetime.blogspot.ca/2012/03/normal-0 - microsoftinternetexplorer4.html
FWIW, I know the blogger.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As Mr. Ball says in defense of Burpee ownership. For the record, I own W. Atlee Burpee & Co. Burpee is NOT owned by Monsanto. We do purchase a small number of seeds from the garden seed department of Seminis, a Monsanto subsidiary, and so do our biggest competitors.
--

<http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm

Biggest competitors, perhaps, but not all. Here is the take on Seminis
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Shameless plug:
www.seedsavers.org
Convention upcoming in late July....pictures to follow!
--
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:57:29 -0400, Gary Woods

I was in Wallyworld yesterday and I saw a display of Seed Saver organic seed packages on display.
--
USA
North Carolina Foothills
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am perfectly capable of reading the web links I use for citation. I stand by what I say, too.

And what does an unscientific poll conducted by Fedco have to do with Burpee seeds?
Boron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can go back to reading whatever you like, as I have no further need of you. I'm glad to read that you are literate, but I was addressing others as to what is a salient point to me, and that is dealing with the enemy.

<http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm
Let's call it a democratic choice.

--
E Pluribus Unum

Know where your money is tonight?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"The enemy"? Whoa, there, buddy, I think you're trying to prove you're one slice short of a sandwich.
You may harbor any thoughts and feelings you want about me or Monsanto. I've no objection but you're implications that Burpee should be shunned due to purchases through Seminis, even though Burpee have nothing to do themselves with GMO seeds, takes it down a nonsensical path.

No, the poll is marketing, not "democratic choice." The poll would had to have been conducted in a representative way to yield valid and reliable results insofar as polling, but even if it were, it would have nothing to do with democratic choice. Fedco is not a government.
Fedco, on the other hand, *can* do whatever the hell they want in their business and give any or no reason for it. You, then, are free to buy from them or not, based on any or no reason whatsoever.
Fedco has annual sales of $3 million. Burpee has sales somewhere between $30 and $50 million.
Boron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But for those who believe that Monsanto's business model embodies all that is corrupt and greedy, our main weapon is to shun those who do business with them, voting with our wallets. That's what Fedco customers said loud and clear. Even at a couple of removes, Burpee _does_ have something to do with GMO seeds.
--
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:03:02 -0400, Gary Woods

You do not have proof that last statement is true. Without knowing the definition of those who were invited to participate in the poll, how the survey was worded and of those who were invited to respond, how many actually did so, and how representative they were of the Fedco customer universe, you just cannot make that as a statement of fact. I have been creating and analyzing surveys and polls for over 35 years. That is why I find tossing around the Fedco numbers a load of manure best put into a garden plot.

And by that extension so do damn near all of the garden supply, hardware and even a good chunk of the grocery stores in the US. There are better, more logical and effective ways to battle the sort of practices Monsanto engages in. Going after Burpee is a waste of time. And I have been involved in political protest even longer than I have been in market research.
Boron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't quote any numbers. Fedco asked its customers and apparently got response sufficient to guide their course of action. I do see a lot of "surveys" these days designed to produce a particular result, i.e. the ubiquitous newsmax popups.
--
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The numbers were quoted in Billy's post:
"We responded to the news by polling our customers. Should we drop the Seminis/Monsanto line, phase it out, keep it but give it its own customer code, or maintain it without change? We received an unprecedented 1,157 responses. 54.8% voted for us to drop the Seminis/Monsanto line immediately, and an additional 17% to phase it out over time. "
In the scheme of things, not a huge number to be working with.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:11:21 -0400, Gary Woods

The numbers were previously posted by Billy, not you.. You posted your conclusion of Fedco customers saying something "loud and clear."

You do not know what drivers were involved in the decision making.

Any survey that is not properly designed, executed and analyzed is useless.
Boron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
boron snipped-for-privacy@hootmail.com says...

Then let's hear how you would organize a way to carry the battle to Monsanto and bring down the evil empire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I've no interest. I merely exposed the lack of logic in going after Burpee but not regarding others similarly as they also do business with Monsanto.
Think globally, act locally.
Boron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You think? That's encouraging. Keep reading then.

Supporting, and dealing with Monsanto is the true nonsensical path.
Why Drop Monsanto?
The current industrial seed system rests upon the unholy trinity of biotechnology, corporate concentration and intellectual property rights. Each is mutually reinforcing and none of the three stands without the support of the other two.
1) Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin has warned that "the process of genetic engineering has a unique ability to produce deleterious effects" and argues that varieties produced by recombinant DNA technology "need to be specially scrutinized and tested."
**As yet, almost all documented tests have been conducted by the very biotech industries which stand to profit from the products being tested. The fox guarding the chicken coop indeed!**
An even more compelling argument against genetic engineering than the safety concerns (which might be alleviated were the biotech industry to embrace mandatory labeling permitting an audit trail of their products) is its structural effects upon the seed industry. The biotech revolution promised much but delivered little. Unanticipated obstacles pushed research and development costs far higher than expected, driving a series of consolidations in which small companies were either swallowed up or forced to make complex licensing agreements with the big guys in order to survive.
Monsanto is the leading proponent and practictioner of genetic engineering. Monsanto seeds and biotech traits accounted for 88% of the total acreage of genetically modified seeds planted worldwide in 2004, an area that has multiplied more than forty-fold since 1996 to encompass 167 million acres.
2) We would do well to heed eminent University of Wisconsin plant breeder Dr. William F. Tracy: "placing the responsibility for the world's crop germplasm and plant improvement in the hands of a few companies is bad public policy....The primary goal of private corporations is to make profit, and...this goal will be at odds with certain public needs....The future of our food supply requires genetic diversity but also demands a diversity of decision makers."
A hyper-concentrated seed system neglects so-called minor crops, regionally-adapted and specialty niche varieties, and those not suited for long distance shipping or global markets, deeming them to be of little economic importance. We can blame the documented declines in the nutritional content of vegetables grown in the United States since 1950 on the corporatization of our food system. Decades of selecting cultivars for rapid growth, yield and pest resistance (traits valued by corporate breeders wishing to maximize returns) at the expense of taste and nutritional content have taken their toll. By basing our food system primarily on the goal of increased production, we have, according to Wendell Berry, "achieved stupendous increases... at exorbitant biological and social costs."
The seed industry is concentrating into fewer and fewer corporate hands. Seminis controlled 40% of the United States vegetable seed market and supplied the genetics for 75% of the tomatoes and 85% of the peppers on supermarket shelves. With the absorption of Seminis, Monsanto vaulted ahead of DuPont as the world's largest seed company.
**After the merger, for the first time the world's top ten seed companies control half the market. In fact, the four biggest ones have 36%.**
3) In 1930, Luther Burbank, testifying before Congress, complained that plant breeders derived no economic benefits from their work and should be rewarded if we wanted to stimulate the development of superior varieties. Of course, he had a point. The debate should be about what are the best mechanisms to reward breeders and encourage research in the public interest. The seed industry has advanced one point of view, lobbying persistently for stronger and stronger patent protection for their "proprietary intellectual property," while at the same time gutting and privatizing a once-thriving public research apparatus at our land-grant universities.
The catch is that plants, unlike widgets which cannot reproduce themselves (at least not yet!), are living beings which can and do, through their seed. The "intellectual property" that is protected in a manufacturing patent--the original idea that makes the product novel and useful--translates poorly into the improvement of life forms, which has typically been the work of generations of farmers, observing mutations, selecting for desired traits, sharing and exchanging seeds, and building gradually upon one another's efforts. Who can own a mutation, occurring freely in nature? By tradition, our biological heritage was held in common. Sharing, not secrecy, was the dominant paradigm. The industry's attempt to impose a proprietary model upon a product bountifully given by nature is a radical departure from our agricultural tradition.
The original Plant Variety Protection Act in 1970, the culmination of 40 years' lobbying by the seed industry, protected varieties from others' use for 17 years, but with important exceptions. Farmers were allowed to save seed, replant it, and even sell it to neighbors, and breeders were permitted to use it for research purposes.
Court decisions in 1980, 1985 and 2001, however, have brought all products of plant breeding under the standard utility patent. Unlike PVP, utility patents protect not just finished varieties, but also individual components of those varieties and processes used to create those varieties. There are no exemptions for farmers to save seed and none for research and breeding.
***** These court decisions now allow proteins to be patented, DNA sequences to be patented, individual mutations to be patented, single nucleotide polymorphisms to be patented, genes, cells, tissue cultures and specific plant parts to be patented. The proliferation of patents and overlapping intellectual property rights has privatized what was once a vast commons, stifled free exchange of germplasm, diminished scientists' freedom to operate, choked off creativity and escalated development costs exponentially, thereby setting off further rounds of consolidation and concentration. The justification for "intellectual property" rights--to stimulate research--has been turned on its head. *****
No company has been more aggressive than Monsanto in defending its "intellectual property." Monsanto currently holds 647 plant biotech patents, more than any other company. When farmers purchase seed containing Monsanto's patented technology, they are required to give up their age-old right to save their own seed, to grant Monsanto broad rights to access their personal records and to come on to their property to inspect their crops. According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers (#9756), a report published by the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto maintains a staff of 75 employees with an annual budget of $10 million for the sole purpose of investigating and prosecuting farmers for patent infringement. It has a toll-free number that allows farmers and businesses to place confidential calls to snitch on alleged patent infringers and it hires private investigation firms such as Pinkerton to spy on suspected farmers. It has investigated hundreds of farmers, sent scores of threatening letters and made out-of-court settlements for alleged patent violations. The 90 lawsuits it has filed represent just the tip of the iceberg.

You think that you have to be a government to be democratic? Why wouldn't Fedco want to respond to it's customer's wishes?
<http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm "We responded to the news [of the Seminis purchase by Monsanto] by polling our customers. Should we drop the Seminis/Monsanto line, phase it out, keep it but give it its own customer code, or maintain it without change? We received an unprecedented 1,157 responses. 54.8% voted for us to drop the Seminis/Monsanto line immediately, and an additional 17% to phase it out over time."

So we have your permission to refrain from purchasing from Monsanto, and anyone who deals with them? Good to know. In reality, this is just a boycott of Monsanto of the same type used on apartheid South Africa, and presently on Israel.

And not a penny will come from me, not now, not ever.

This thread is done, as far as I am concerned.
--
E Pluribus Unum

Know where your money is tonight?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.