> This is a perfect example of the original article's conclusion: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I do know what I'm talking about. If you th

> This is a perfect example of the original article's conclusion: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I do know what I'm talking about. If you think you can talk a hybrid seed and plant a viable crop for the next year, you are mistaken. > But! You're confusing this with sterile or semi-sterile inter-species hybrids like mules, or perhaps sterile triploids like banana. These are completely different phenomena that have nothing to do with 'hybrid corn'. Have you ever purchased a seedless watermelon? How are you going to replant that? > if you make your transgene products terminate, the transgenes can't spread into the environment. Unfortunately this technology was never commercialized because of reactionaries like yourself. You use the term 'reactionary' obviously to denigrate me. Should there be genes that contaminate other's crops that would potentially lead to nonviable seeds? Of course not, that's got to be even worse for the planet. > Final point; you're aware traditional crops have just as much IP protection as transgene crops, right? Plant variety protections last in the 15-20 year range, are respected by most international treaties, and are ubiquitous in crop breeding, ornamental flower breeding, etc. Utility patents provide slightly different protections for transgene crops, but it's not much different. Those trendy apples or 'Sunshine raspberries' at the grocery store? 100% patented. Why is your trendy beer so expensive? Patented hops. It fucking boogles the mind that anyone thinks transgenes have a thing to do with this. Just because other aspects of agriculture fall under patent law doesn't take away from my argument against GMOs being patentable. In fact, GMOs are even worse a specific gene might be easily identified and used as a patent enforcement tool. Current law allows patent holders to come after end users. EG, if you receive seed from your supplier, and it was at some point (even unknowingly) contaminated with a specific gene through cross contamination, you could be held liable. Especially if you are a farmer and you are considered 'producing' and 'distributing' their patented works (such as selling seed stock or the actual produce). You fail to see the other side of the issue because you are an apparent GMO zealot.