4 ms·

Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) The amount of seed diversi

Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn.

e12e 13y ago
> Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about > 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I suspect a typo? (I gather the gist is that there used to be roughly three species of grain in the US, in the past 50 years -- down from what was introduced with the colonization some four hundred years ago (note, I'm not being snarky about the colonization, but AFAIK there didn't "use" to be any grain grown in most of what is the US today (not sure about California (old Mexico))). Note, I said corn in my original post (which I gather means the same in Scottish English, as it does in the Norwegian (almost) homonym) -- I meant grain. > The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, I thought Monsato generally sold Roundup. Are you saying they've increased the variety of corn (or grain) that is grown in the US substantially (and how much of that is patent encumbered)? > Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn. Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting.
- climateanon 13y ago
  Yep, that was supposed to be Sorry, late night! That first line was supposed to say: > Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was from about of 3 the common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) Not 3 types of grain, 3 types of corn. People have been aggressively breeding seed for a long time. Monsanto has offices all over the world and tries to bring the best varieties of corn and breed them into a number of different high performing lines. I know Monsanto breeders feel like the genetic diversity argument is a little silly because they think they introduce a lot of genetic diversity. >Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Typically what's patented is the GMOs, not the corn that is bred traditionally (which is where > 50% of Monsanto's R&D budget goes to.) >Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting. I agree. To my knowledge, it's only been farmers who had an agreement with Monsanto and violated that who have been sued. See the Schmeiser/Monsanto case for an example.
  - Fishkins 13y ago
    What agreement did Schmeiser have with Monsanto? He never interacted with Monsanto to get the seeds, right? He intentionally collected and replanted them, but that didn't involve any interaction with Monsanto, either. I guess he purchased roundup from them. Does that involve some agreement? Or are you saying there was an implicit agreement because he chose to live in a country with patent laws he should have known he was violating? It does seem what he did was illegal given our patent system (regardless of whether it should be), but your wording seems to imply more than that.

e12e 13y ago

> Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about > 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I suspect a typo? (I gather the gist is that there used to be roughly three species of grain in the US, in the past 50 years -- down from what was introduced with the colonization some four hundred years ago (note, I'm not being snarky about the colonization, but AFAIK there didn't "use" to be any grain grown in most of what is the US today (not sure about California (old Mexico))). Note, I said corn in my original post (which I gather means the same in Scottish English, as it does in the Norwegian (almost) homonym) -- I meant grain. > The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, I thought Monsato generally sold Roundup. Are you saying they've increased the variety of corn (or grain) that is grown in the US substantially (and how much of that is patent encumbered)? > Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn. Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting.

climateanon 13y ago
Yep, that was supposed to be Sorry, late night! That first line was supposed to say: > Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was from about of 3 the common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) Not 3 types of grain, 3 types of corn. People have been aggressively breeding seed for a long time. Monsanto has offices all over the world and tries to bring the best varieties of corn and breed them into a number of different high performing lines. I know Monsanto breeders feel like the genetic diversity argument is a little silly because they think they introduce a lot of genetic diversity. >Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Typically what's patented is the GMOs, not the corn that is bred traditionally (which is where > 50% of Monsanto's R&D budget goes to.) >Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting. I agree. To my knowledge, it's only been farmers who had an agreement with Monsanto and violated that who have been sued. See the Schmeiser/Monsanto case for an example.
- Fishkins 13y ago
  What agreement did Schmeiser have with Monsanto? He never interacted with Monsanto to get the seeds, right? He intentionally collected and replanted them, but that didn't involve any interaction with Monsanto, either. I guess he purchased roundup from them. Does that involve some agreement? Or are you saying there was an implicit agreement because he chose to live in a country with patent laws he should have known he was violating? It does seem what he did was illegal given our patent system (regardless of whether it should be), but your wording seems to imply more than that.