7 ms·

> Or do you have some alternative in mind to incentivize the development of better breeds and variants other than patenting? What makes you think the breeds th

> Or do you have some alternative in mind to incentivize the development of better breeds and variants other than patenting? What makes you think the breeds they're developing are "better"? Monsanto famously developed "terminator seeds" that were only stopped from distribution under intense pressure from the community since they posed a major risk to the food supply[0]. The seeds were genetically designed to die after one harvest and Monsanto couldn't guarantee that the terminator variants wouldn't cross-pollinate with legacy varieties and inherit the same trait. That is pure greed. Not improvement, not innovation. Pure, unadulterated greed. We have to move past the argument that all businesses are truly innovating all the time. The only thing constantly being innovated is their ability to make money. Take everything else with a grain of salt. 0: https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/ https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/

pfdietz 4y ago
If they aren't better, why would a farmer care if they're for sale? They could just use the older varieties and not suffer any penalty. No, the whining about patented plants is because they would be superior, and farmers who spurned them would be at a competitive disadvantage. You can't have it both ways. Oh, and why are terminator seeds (which Monsanto never sold) any worse than hybrid seeds, which don't breed true and effectively can't be replanted?
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  > If they aren't better, why would a farmer care if they're for sale? They could just use the older varieties and not suffer any penalty. Many farmers use Monsanto out of fear for being sued. Monsanto has license agreements in place that permit them to sue farmers that use their seeds without permission. This means that if your neighboring farmer uses Monsanto seeds and some of the seeds blow onto your land and cross-pollinate, you're now violating Monsanto's patents. They've sued farmers for millions over this[0]. > Oh, and why are terminator seeds (which Monsanto never sold) any worse than hybrid seeds, which don't breed true and effectively can't be replanted? Like I said, Monsanto couldn't prove that terminator seeds wouldn't cross-pollinate with other varieties, which could've triggered a mass-starvation event unlike anything we've ever seen. It's crazy to see people defending this kind of behavior. 0: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    > Many farmers use Monsanto out of fear for being sued. If you buy seed from another supplier, Monsanto would sue you? It's incredible you could make this statement without realizing how completely and obviously absurd it is. If this scenario were real, other seed producers could have demolished Monsanto with restraint of trade lawsuits, and would have. And no, Monsanto never sued a single farmer due to inadvertent contamination from GMO pollen. They stated they never would, and it's very likely that even if they had tried, it would not have worked (since the farmer is not responsible for the contamination.) They DID sue a farmer who deliberately sprayed a field that had been contaminated, to kill off the crops without the trait, and repeated this until he had selected for and concentrated the resistance trait. THAT act, spraying and collecting, showed malicious intent and violated the patent. It's not something an honest farmer would have to worry about. If terminator seeds (which Monsanto never sold) caused traces of cross pollination, why would that be a problem? The trait would rapidly select itself out of a population.
    - gaganyaan 4y ago
      Your defense does not come across how you think it does, particularly because it's inherently absurd and devoid of reason. "You there! Crop! Stop sharing genes! Stop adapting to your environment! This piece of paper says you can't!" The idea that you can loose a reproducing organism on the world and then sue people when that organism does what reproducing organisms do is just... stop and listen to yourself. You're spouting nonsense syllables that resemble speech.
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        These things are perfectly reasonable in the world of regular copyright. If you take a photo, and accidentally catch a copyrighted content in the frame, it’s perfectly fine, but if you deliberately crop the copyrighted content from your photo, and reproduce it for financial gain, that’s illegal.
        gaganyaan 4y ago
- pdntspa 4y ago
  Monsanto sends out their goons to monitor for crops using Monsanto seeds without appropriate licensing. The cross-polination threat is very real and has resulted in a lot of pain and anguish for farmers who choose not to use Monsanto seeds
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    You are repeating odious propaganda here. Monsanto never sued a single farmer for inadvertent contamination (and would likely have failed miserably if they had tried). They have sued farmers who replanted a licensed crop in violation of the license, and they sued a farmer who deliberately sprayed a field with glyphosate to concentrate traces of resistance genes that had drifted in, so he could produce his own resistant seed. No honest farmer would have anything to worry about.
    - gaganyaan 4y ago
      "Oh no, our crops did what crops do, better starting suing!" Monsanto can get fucked, the idea of patenting nature is so obviously absurd on the face of it that I must assume you were not in your right mind while writing this comment.
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        The goal posts! How did they get so fast?! The fact remains. Farmers who don't knowingly plant patented seeds have nothing to worry about. The fact that the vast majority use the patented seeds means the seeds are worth more than they cost and the seed researchers are creating value.
        gaganyaan 4y ago
        "Patented seeds" is an oxymoron. Applying imaginary human concepts like that to nature is absurd, full stop.
        pfdietz 4y ago
colinmhayes 4y ago
The fact that farmers use them makes me think they're better. Farmers can buy "generic" non-gmo seeds that cost practically nothing. They choose not to, presumably because they believe they won't make as much money.
- mhuffman 4y ago
  >They choose not to, presumably because they believe they won't make as much money. They choose not to because Monsanto famously sues the hell out of farmers who have patented seeds in up in their farms.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Which cases involve Monsanto suing a farmer who didn't bring the patented seeds into their land on purpose? Every single case I know of is against a farmer who knowingly planted patented seeds.
snovv_crash 4y ago
Terminator seeds were developed specifically to prevent GMOs from 'contaminating' heritage crops, a case that environmentalists care deeply about. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize the commercial seed industry but this isn't one of them.

pfdietz 4y ago

If they aren't better, why would a farmer care if they're for sale? They could just use the older varieties and not suffer any penalty. No, the whining about patented plants is because they would be superior, and farmers who spurned them would be at a competitive disadvantage. You can't have it both ways. Oh, and why are terminator seeds (which Monsanto never sold) any worse than hybrid seeds, which don't breed true and effectively can't be replanted?

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
> If they aren't better, why would a farmer care if they're for sale? They could just use the older varieties and not suffer any penalty. Many farmers use Monsanto out of fear for being sued. Monsanto has license agreements in place that permit them to sue farmers that use their seeds without permission. This means that if your neighboring farmer uses Monsanto seeds and some of the seeds blow onto your land and cross-pollinate, you're now violating Monsanto's patents. They've sued farmers for millions over this[0]. > Oh, and why are terminator seeds (which Monsanto never sold) any worse than hybrid seeds, which don't breed true and effectively can't be replanted? Like I said, Monsanto couldn't prove that terminator seeds wouldn't cross-pollinate with other varieties, which could've triggered a mass-starvation event unlike anything we've ever seen. It's crazy to see people defending this kind of behavior. 0: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
- pfdietz 4y ago
  > Many farmers use Monsanto out of fear for being sued. If you buy seed from another supplier, Monsanto would sue you? It's incredible you could make this statement without realizing how completely and obviously absurd it is. If this scenario were real, other seed producers could have demolished Monsanto with restraint of trade lawsuits, and would have. And no, Monsanto never sued a single farmer due to inadvertent contamination from GMO pollen. They stated they never would, and it's very likely that even if they had tried, it would not have worked (since the farmer is not responsible for the contamination.) They DID sue a farmer who deliberately sprayed a field that had been contaminated, to kill off the crops without the trait, and repeated this until he had selected for and concentrated the resistance trait. THAT act, spraying and collecting, showed malicious intent and violated the patent. It's not something an honest farmer would have to worry about. If terminator seeds (which Monsanto never sold) caused traces of cross pollination, why would that be a problem? The trait would rapidly select itself out of a population.
  - gaganyaan 4y ago
    Your defense does not come across how you think it does, particularly because it's inherently absurd and devoid of reason. "You there! Crop! Stop sharing genes! Stop adapting to your environment! This piece of paper says you can't!" The idea that you can loose a reproducing organism on the world and then sue people when that organism does what reproducing organisms do is just... stop and listen to yourself. You're spouting nonsense syllables that resemble speech.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      These things are perfectly reasonable in the world of regular copyright. If you take a photo, and accidentally catch a copyrighted content in the frame, it’s perfectly fine, but if you deliberately crop the copyrighted content from your photo, and reproduce it for financial gain, that’s illegal.
      - gaganyaan 4y ago
pdntspa 4y ago
Monsanto sends out their goons to monitor for crops using Monsanto seeds without appropriate licensing. The cross-polination threat is very real and has resulted in a lot of pain and anguish for farmers who choose not to use Monsanto seeds
- pfdietz 4y ago
  You are repeating odious propaganda here. Monsanto never sued a single farmer for inadvertent contamination (and would likely have failed miserably if they had tried). They have sued farmers who replanted a licensed crop in violation of the license, and they sued a farmer who deliberately sprayed a field with glyphosate to concentrate traces of resistance genes that had drifted in, so he could produce his own resistant seed. No honest farmer would have anything to worry about.
  - gaganyaan 4y ago
    "Oh no, our crops did what crops do, better starting suing!" Monsanto can get fucked, the idea of patenting nature is so obviously absurd on the face of it that I must assume you were not in your right mind while writing this comment.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      The goal posts! How did they get so fast?! The fact remains. Farmers who don't knowingly plant patented seeds have nothing to worry about. The fact that the vast majority use the patented seeds means the seeds are worth more than they cost and the seed researchers are creating value.
      - gaganyaan 4y ago
        "Patented seeds" is an oxymoron. Applying imaginary human concepts like that to nature is absurd, full stop.
        pfdietz 4y ago

colinmhayes 4y ago

The fact that farmers use them makes me think they're better. Farmers can buy "generic" non-gmo seeds that cost practically nothing. They choose not to, presumably because they believe they won't make as much money.

mhuffman 4y ago
>They choose not to, presumably because they believe they won't make as much money. They choose not to because Monsanto famously sues the hell out of farmers who have patented seeds in up in their farms.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Which cases involve Monsanto suing a farmer who didn't bring the patented seeds into their land on purpose? Every single case I know of is against a farmer who knowingly planted patented seeds.

snovv_crash 4y ago

Terminator seeds were developed specifically to prevent GMOs from 'contaminating' heritage crops, a case that environmentalists care deeply about. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize the commercial seed industry but this isn't one of them.