Monsanto

Page 2 of 3  


Sure he knew, but wasn't that what mankind has done since the dawn of agriculture? That right should be protected if only by common sense. One always selects the best seed for next years crop. Just my $.02 worth, Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Common sense tells me that the right to save seed doesn't extend to saving someone else's patented property. Don't like the law? That's what November 4th is for.
This wasn't a protest, it was a theft.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net says...

It wasn't a protest.
It wasn't theft.
Seed saving is a human right.
That Monsanto is capable of abusing the law to prevent a farmer from exercising a basic right is tribute to the thieves running the show.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he supposed to do? He has lost his seed crop. Does he have to plow his crop under, wasting time and expense, or find the patent holder and pay them for genetic properties that he, the farmer, didn't ask for or want? Legally, every seed that contains Monsanto's genetic profile, belongs to Monsanto. Who pays for the loss of diversity? Who pays for losses, if his customers don't want GMOs? Since my plants become Monsanto's plants when they cross fertilize, who pays me for my loss?
GMOs should be grown in hermetically sealed enclosures, and the owner should be fined if he lets them escape.
Bad laws, make bad citizens, and this one is a stinker.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument. What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate someone else's patented property.
Sweet John Muir on ice...you've got me defending Monsanto. I need a shower. And a drink.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bad laws make "Bad" citizens.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I say it's a basic, inherent human to isolate and propogate "better" food regardless of the source. Steve

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

I propose we agree to disagree on this point. I do not believe in an inviolable right to ignore law for one's own convenience. That's all we're talking about here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and I say the law disregards human rights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then change it. THAT'S your right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There should be a law to protect others from Monsanto crops infecting surrounding fields. This is were the big problem lies. .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are supposed to be buffer fields to do that.
*They*don't*work* and there is constant pressure to reduce the size of the buffers.
GM rapeseed/canola *has escaped* and is *growing in the wild as a weed* so there's no stopping it and no controlling it. Of course it's more prevalent in canola growing districts. (The core area of my city isn't a canola district and it crops up here.)
Monsanto has never been naive enough to believe that they could stop the genes from spreading. Buffer zones can slow it, not arrest it as noted above. The reason they've focused on bullying farmers is that they know the gene is going to escape and farmers are an easily mangled(sic) target; a strategic pinch-point, if you will.
Monsanto has enough smart, if evil minds to have worked it out ahead of time. Every action Monsanto launches in protection of its patent has to be seen within this context. --If I put myself in their planners' position I would see the spread as reasonable leverage to put more pressure on the buffer zones *because* the gene has escaped into the wild and the buffer zones have become irrelevant.
The question that I think has to be asked at all levels is, "Is it reasonable to assume that at the outset, Monsanto could have predicted the spread of the GM canola/rapeseed gene far beyond the borders of licensed farms to other farms and into the wild?"
If yes, and I believe the answer is yes, then the patent should be revoked, precedent set, and Monsanto held accountable in a significant, non-costofdoingbusiness way.
Time's up. Gotta run.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They should not be grown next to a farmer who saves seed, thats for sure. Its just a matter of time until some bug comes along and kills 2/3 the population. Then most of the worlds problems will be over.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No victim? I'd say that we are all victims of Monsanto's efforts to reduce diversity, and to feed us untested (no feeding studies that I'm aware of) products.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd say, if you have wooden shoes, you should throw them in the gears.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I agree. But we can't justify stealing the gears, ya know? There is a right way to do things. Now you have me spitting platitudes. And in favor of Monsanto. That's just nasty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net says...

Just a rambling comment:
I would say that the gears should not belong to Monsanto or anyone at all and that seed saving must be defined as a human right.
It's clear that Monsanto can't contain it, _the damn stuff grows wild as a weed._ Canadian GMO rapeseed has been seen growing wild in Japan of all places.
I've seen it growing wild around here. (I destroy it wherever I see it as I do garlic mustard.)
There's concern over it crossing with turnips and other related vegetables. --So to continue to contain it Monsanto has to start testing for the gene in vegetables.
(And what of crosses to related wild species?)
...I've no doubt that GMO rapeseed will become a naturalized invasive weed and then what? It will leapfrog its way to areas that are not under Monsanto domination and then what?
In short, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be (insert favourite expletive here) contained. I think that even Monsanto doesn't have enough money to contain it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@yahoo.com says...

substitute "control its use" for the words "contain it"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses? What's the difference?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't sign a contract when you buy or receive a Jackson and Perkins' rose.
Roses are (hopefully) perennials and only need to be purchased once, which is kinda traditional.
Jackson and Perkins' roses won't change the genetic make-up of your neighbor's roses.
Jackson and Perkins' roses won't lead to herbicide resistant weeds.
On the other hand, your neighbors are free to use any genes that have wandered into their yard, should they want to start their own breeding program.
There is no law to bar people from saving or selling Jackson and Perkins' rose blossoms or seed.
That genetic marker means that, no matter how many years farmers spend developing seed for their specific locations, no matter how different the conserved seed is from the original Monsanto seed, the marker means that, now, the rest of the genome belongs to Monsanto too.
Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if you wanted to fill an acre with self-made grafts of Jackson and Perkins' roses, I doubt you would have a problem, unless you went into a commercial venture to sell them. If you grow an acre of Monsanto's "Franken-plants" from conserved seed, their heavy-handed snitches and lawyers would be all over you, sales or not.
Yes, they both have 20 year patents, but you must see the qualitative difference between controlling ornamental plants, and trying to monopolize the right to grow food.
This is right in there with claiming the water from rainfall, just because you bought the water company. (see movie: "Corporation", Based on "The corporation : the pathological pursuit of profit and power" by Joel Bakan. Released as a motion picture in 2004. In better libraries near you.)
As usual, "Bad laws make BAD citizens".
http://www.seedalliance.org/index.php?page=SeminisMonsanto "There is a direct threat to our food system when we have a preponderance of genetic resources controlled by institutions whose only goal is profit," plant breeder Frank Morton expressed emphatically when asked for his perspective on the Monsanto acquisition. He went on to compare the present with the past, "When these services [breeding and production] were diffused amongst many individuals and groups with diverse motives, we had a much more diverse and healthy food system."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/6768757.html "We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin But it's not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may be a thing of the past.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I do, and have publically stated that I do, abhor Monsanto's business model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.