4 ms·

It's hard to know where to begin. You make some of the most difficult genetic engineering projects in the world sound like you can program it on your computer.

by skosuri 14y ago

It's hard to know where to begin. You make some of the most difficult genetic engineering projects in the world sound like you can program it on your computer. You can't. What Monsanto has done and does now is difficult. Most transgenics don't work as you expect. It is most certainly an invention, not a discovery. With regard to your points: 1. There are already rules here; in terms of non-transgenics and natural sequence, the case you should look at is myriad, which is also being considered by the supreme court. I agree with monsanto here, and against myriad on diagnostics of natural variants. 2. Let me guess, you are not a farmer. Most seeds aren't saved "as nature intended". This is true of non-transgenics as well in the form of hybrid seeds. 3. Ugh... Finally, regarding your last "scenario"; can you name an actual similar event where what you saying is even close to true (please don't link to the Percy Schmeiser case)?

einhverfr 14y ago
It may be difficult but that doesn't mean one gives corporations this sort of strangehold on the industry. Let's take a close example, rose hybridization. Most new popular rose hybrids are protected under ordinary plant patents. If you want to grow the plant you need a plant patent license to do so and buying a plant at a store gives you this. There need not be an explicit license from anyone but the one who actually makes the clones. This is a good balance because the plant patent act does not reach sexual reproduction. One does not need a plant patent license to hybridize two other patented varieties (rose hybridization is hard too). This means that the plant patent is very limited in scope. Transgenic patents which cover sexual reproduction however are largely unlimited in scope and therefore very dangerous and it is for this reason that Monsanto should lose unless Congress speaks clearly that such may be patented.
glabifrons 14y ago
Yes, what they have done is difficult, the process is what should be protected, not the product of the use of the product, nor the contamination caused by the product. 2. No, I'm not a farmer, but my ancestors were, and the family farm is surrounded by other (current) small farmers. The "field corn" (intended for cattle feed) that grew on my grandfather's farm in the '70s-'80s was far sweeter than any engineered "sweet corn" I've had from any supermarket for the last 25+ years. This corn was grown using the old methods which I've seen many claim (as you have) are no longer used. Maybe the industrialized farms aren't saving their old seed (because they're likely all using GMO seed), but the small (family) farms still are (especially organic ones). Why wouldn't you use this method? Why sell something you have to re-purchase, especially when, after several seasons, the seed is effectively acclimated to your environment and more productive? (of course you can't use this method if you're using GMO seed) "3. Ugh..." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1290104... TL;DR: 86% of "wild" canola is GMO, most of which contain multiple engineered genes (multiple generations of contamination). At this rate, it won't be long before "wild" canola is extinct. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/local/la-me-gs-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-to-stop-patent-suits-20120217 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/local/la-me-gs-organ... http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-... This will likely be viewed by those supporting Monsanto as BS, but I'll include it anyways: http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ Countless heritage species of corn grown by families in Mexico are GMO contaminated... effectively wiping them out.
- jrkelly 14y ago
  Maybe the industrialized farms aren't saving their old seed (because they're likely all using GMO seed), but the small (family) farms still are (especially organic ones). Why wouldn't you use this method? Because it's much less efficient for many crops. The technology of saving seeds wasn't unseated by GMOs in the 90s, it was unseated by hybrid crops in the 20s. "Today, hybrid seed production is predominant in agriculture and home gardening, and is one of the main contributing factors to the dramatic rise in agricultural output during the last half of the 20th century. In the US, the commercial market was launched in the 1920s, with the first hybrid maize. All of the hybrid seeds planted by the farmer will be the same hybrid while the seeds from the hybrids planted will not consistently have the desired characteristics. This is why hybrid seed is constantly repurchased by growers for each planting season." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed
  - glabifrons 14y ago
    I find this just as interesting and relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving This process is certainly not extinct. The Legality section has some tidbits that might actually be useful in this case.
    - jrkelly 14y ago
      Well no tech really goes extinct. Kevin Kelly has a great piece on it: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/04/technologies_do.php http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/04/technologies_... It just moves to hobbyists / fringe. Mainline agriculture hasn't saved seeds for a long time (coming up on 100 years) for many crops due to the improved performance of hybrids. Seed saving is brought up w/r/t GMOs because it makes for a better narrative. People actually originally attacked hybrids with the same approach ... farmers wouldn't be able to save seeds since their saved seeds would be worse than the hybrids.

by skosuri 14y ago

einhverfr 14y ago

It may be difficult but that doesn't mean one gives corporations this sort of strangehold on the industry. Let's take a close example, rose hybridization. Most new popular rose hybrids are protected under ordinary plant patents. If you want to grow the plant you need a plant patent license to do so and buying a plant at a store gives you this. There need not be an explicit license from anyone but the one who actually makes the clones. This is a good balance because the plant patent act does not reach sexual reproduction. One does not need a plant patent license to hybridize two other patented varieties (rose hybridization is hard too). This means that the plant patent is very limited in scope. Transgenic patents which cover sexual reproduction however are largely unlimited in scope and therefore very dangerous and it is for this reason that Monsanto should lose unless Congress speaks clearly that such may be patented.

glabifrons 14y ago

Yes, what they have done is difficult, the process is what should be protected, not the product of the use of the product, nor the contamination caused by the product. 2. No, I'm not a farmer, but my ancestors were, and the family farm is surrounded by other (current) small farmers. The "field corn" (intended for cattle feed) that grew on my grandfather's farm in the '70s-'80s was far sweeter than any engineered "sweet corn" I've had from any supermarket for the last 25+ years. This corn was grown using the old methods which I've seen many claim (as you have) are no longer used. Maybe the industrialized farms aren't saving their old seed (because they're likely all using GMO seed), but the small (family) farms still are (especially organic ones). Why wouldn't you use this method? Why sell something you have to re-purchase, especially when, after several seasons, the seed is effectively acclimated to your environment and more productive? (of course you can't use this method if you're using GMO seed) "3. Ugh..." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1290104... TL;DR: 86% of "wild" canola is GMO, most of which contain multiple engineered genes (multiple generations of contamination). At this rate, it won't be long before "wild" canola is extinct. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/local/la-me-gs-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-to-stop-patent-suits-20120217 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/local/la-me-gs-organ... http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-... This will likely be viewed by those supporting Monsanto as BS, but I'll include it anyways: http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ Countless heritage species of corn grown by families in Mexico are GMO contaminated... effectively wiping them out.

jrkelly 14y ago
Maybe the industrialized farms aren't saving their old seed (because they're likely all using GMO seed), but the small (family) farms still are (especially organic ones). Why wouldn't you use this method? Because it's much less efficient for many crops. The technology of saving seeds wasn't unseated by GMOs in the 90s, it was unseated by hybrid crops in the 20s. "Today, hybrid seed production is predominant in agriculture and home gardening, and is one of the main contributing factors to the dramatic rise in agricultural output during the last half of the 20th century. In the US, the commercial market was launched in the 1920s, with the first hybrid maize. All of the hybrid seeds planted by the farmer will be the same hybrid while the seeds from the hybrids planted will not consistently have the desired characteristics. This is why hybrid seed is constantly repurchased by growers for each planting season." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed
- glabifrons 14y ago
  I find this just as interesting and relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving This process is certainly not extinct. The Legality section has some tidbits that might actually be useful in this case.
  - jrkelly 14y ago
    Well no tech really goes extinct. Kevin Kelly has a great piece on it: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/04/technologies_do.php http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/04/technologies_... It just moves to hobbyists / fringe. Mainline agriculture hasn't saved seeds for a long time (coming up on 100 years) for many crops due to the improved performance of hybrids. Seed saving is brought up w/r/t GMOs because it makes for a better narrative. People actually originally attacked hybrids with the same approach ... farmers wouldn't be able to save seeds since their saved seeds would be worse than the hybrids.