3 ms·

The correct analogy would be if Monsanto created genetically engineered humans who are immune to certain diseases, but made them sterile, and then sued them whe

The correct analogy would be if Monsanto created genetically engineered humans who are immune to certain diseases, but made them sterile, and then sued them when they managed to procreate anyway. These seeds are functionally different from ordinary seeds, and Monsanto is claiming patents on any seeds that contain the similar DNA.

danielweber 14y ago
but made them sterile Monsanto never sold terminator-seeds. They consciously decided to not do that and instead use contracts and patent law to protect their stuff. 9/10 of the comments on this thread are suggesting that Monsanto should have done the terminator tech, though.
- talmand 14y ago
  Thus my problems with Monsanto. It just reeks that they knew the outcome of all this and have tried to set themselves up as the owners of all seeds involved in farming they provide seeds for. If they started with sterile seeds that could not be cross pollinated then I would slightly different attitude towards them. But I would still think it wrong for them to attack farmers who unknowingly end up with their seeds, such as from a granary like in the linked article. They should have to prove the farmer tried to get such seeds through improper channels.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    People were freaking out over terminator seeds, claiming it was going to (somehow) spread to other things and end all life on earth. Monsanto responded by pledging not to use terminator seeds. The anti-GMO crowd got exactly what they wanted. [1] It's churlish for the mob to claim they were bad for wanting to use terminator seeds, and then claim that they don't have protection because they didn't use terminator seeds. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm
    - talmand 14y ago
      I don't consider myself part of a mob. It seems that since Monsanto's seeds are spreading into farmer's fields that did not intend to have them then I would say the fear of the terminator seeds spreading might be valid. I would think the anti-GMO crowd's point is that they don't want gene spliced seeds at all in the first place.

danielweber 14y ago

but made them sterile Monsanto never sold terminator-seeds. They consciously decided to not do that and instead use contracts and patent law to protect their stuff. 9/10 of the comments on this thread are suggesting that Monsanto should have done the terminator tech, though.

talmand 14y ago
Thus my problems with Monsanto. It just reeks that they knew the outcome of all this and have tried to set themselves up as the owners of all seeds involved in farming they provide seeds for. If they started with sterile seeds that could not be cross pollinated then I would slightly different attitude towards them. But I would still think it wrong for them to attack farmers who unknowingly end up with their seeds, such as from a granary like in the linked article. They should have to prove the farmer tried to get such seeds through improper channels.
- danielweber 14y ago
  People were freaking out over terminator seeds, claiming it was going to (somehow) spread to other things and end all life on earth. Monsanto responded by pledging not to use terminator seeds. The anti-GMO crowd got exactly what they wanted. [1] It's churlish for the mob to claim they were bad for wanting to use terminator seeds, and then claim that they don't have protection because they didn't use terminator seeds. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm
  - talmand 14y ago
    I don't consider myself part of a mob. It seems that since Monsanto's seeds are spreading into farmer's fields that did not intend to have them then I would say the fear of the terminator seeds spreading might be valid. I would think the anti-GMO crowd's point is that they don't want gene spliced seeds at all in the first place.