Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land gr

Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land grant universities through public grants. EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell - new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can, breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new vines, whatever. If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities) The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity, especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is 80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you. Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has happened) We'll see if the fields turn ^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.