19 ms·
We find unplanted weeds all the time, it's just a fact of life that plants spread. Unless they pose any danger to anyone (which would surprise me), I don't see
by perlgeek 7y ago
We find unplanted weeds all the time, it's just a fact of life that plants spread.
Unless they pose any danger to anyone (which would surprise me), I don't see why all of this fuzz is being made.
- benj111 7y agoWhat if you get sued by the IP owners for growing 'their' crops?
- stickfigure 7y agoThis question is FUD. You are probably referring to Bowman v Monsanto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co. Bowman deliberately bought seeds from a third party that contained Monsanto's patented genes and claimed that because a third party was involved, the patent did not apply. This has nothing to do with accidental contamination.
- knolax 7y agoThey still tried to patent an organism.
- dnautics 7y agoThe authority to patent plants is explicitly granted in the patent legislation from the 19th century.
- knolax 7y agoThe authority to own slaves was also explicitly granted in the 19th century.
- sampo 7y ago> They still tried to patent an organism. There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutation...
- benj111 7y agoWhy is it a quasi-religious belief, to be against the patenting of organisms? Organisms do the things themselves, without the hand of man, that seems a reasonable argument against granting patents by itself. You may not agree with the argument, but it isn't quasi-religious.
- sampo 7y agoSomeone spends in R&D for making a better aspirin, they can profit by patenting it. Someone spends in R&D for making a better tomato, you oppose them patenting it? Why do you want patents to protect the ability to profit from R&D investments in one industry, but not in another? Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
- anfilt 7y agoMost these genes or modifications are genes from other organisms. It's not like they choose A-T and G-C one by one creating a set of genes whole cloth. They copy something else that already exist. I don't call that an invention. So I don't understand why you can patent genes you find in other organisms. It's not your invention. I don't think it really has anything to do with it being alive. Copying something that exists is not an invention.
- frozenport 7y agoUsing things that already exist in a new application is perfectly valid subject matter. You could easily say that using these genes is a process to enhance crop yield.
- benj111 7y agoIt isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated. If I accidentally use a patented algorithm, that isn't a defense, and it isn't in this case. What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop? What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.
- sampo 7y ago> It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?
- benj111 7y agoThey aren't. Which is why it isn't FUD.
- bitreality 7y agoThis question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life. Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year. Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
- sampo 7y ago> Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds [...] is morally wrong Why is it morally wrong? Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
- Xylakant 7y agoOne of the promises made when introducing genetically modified plants into the ecosystem was that it was perfectly possible to control and prevent their spread. This is an obvious counterexample.
- CodiePetersen 7y agoI'd like to see where you've heard that promise. The only thing close to that I have heard is that farmers can take similar steps to stop unwanted plants on their fields that they already do.
- Nicksil 7y agoWho, specifically, made such a statement?
- sametmax 7y agoBecause we have very little feedback on the long term effect of new bio techs. Because they have the potential to have a cascading effect on human healt and the entire ecosystem. Because the people selling them have no incentive to make sure they are safe on the long run since corporations almost never pay anything for their mistakes, and when they do it's a small percent of what they gained from them. Because the only decent thing we got out of them was the assurance, and a lie, that they can contain it. It took 80 years from finding out asbestos killed people to banning it. Cigarets were sold as healthy, then opponents were fought to the bones. The pharmaceutical companies are making sure the US is becomming addict to opioid and prepare to sell people drugs to get out of addiction as well. Because we are talking about a country that had a president that lied about WMD to get to invade another country, and another one that govern using tweets, and they are in charge of keeping things in check. Because humans already have to face war, global warming and heavy pollution thanks to their careless nature. It's not about morality. It's not about conviction. It's just not wanting to jump without a parachute. Powerful techs, all of them, be it AI, nanobots or GMO, should be under amazing scrutiny and people using them in a constant state of audit for the next 50 years. That this is even questionable is beyond me.
- downrightmike 7y agoThey probably shot the plant's genome with gold buckshot laced with new genes. The plants survived that, they grow in the fields and then migrate like everything else. They are viable. The genes may be able to be pollinated to other plants. Maybe incorporated, but if they can't outgrow weeds better than the non gmo, then it all is on equal footing. The qualities we want in a mono crop may not cross to the wilds.
- std_throwaway 7y agoWe were told they could and would contain it to the designated fields. We were told that we should not worry about it spreading.
- desipis 7y agoWhat do farmers do when those weeds are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides and pests and to grow faster and more aggressively than the desired crop, to the extent that existing weed strategies are no longer effective?
- CodiePetersen 7y agoTill the ground and rip them out like they do every planting cycle already.