7 ms·

WTF?! Didn't realize this was even a thing. Honestly reeks of agribusiness lobbying. Seeds are a fundamental requirment for human existence and should be fr

WTF?! Didn't realize this was even a thing. Honestly reeks of agribusiness lobbying. Seeds are a fundamental requirment for human existence and should be free to sell, save, use, give away. Next thing you know water will cost $15.00 a gallon and only be sold through authorized sources like Monsanto and Coca-cola for "QUALITY CONTROL" purposes.

freehunter 12y ago
To me it didn't sound like lobbying, but laws that didn't take into account that people might give away seeds for free. It's a good law for knowing that the seeds you buy are good quality, but poor for centralized community seed exchanges, which are a pretty new thing. In the past you would just go to your neighbor and get some seeds (which is still legal).
- Myrth 12y ago
  I think he talks not about laws themselves but overzealous unreasonable enforcement, that is a result of lobbying
- Zikes 12y ago
  If your neighbor's seeds are from Monsanto I don't think it's legal.
- njharman 12y ago
  Lobbyists often write the laws http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620... Google for many more examples.
- netcan 12y ago
  But it would have made it illegal for you neighbour to sell you some seeds. This is actually a good, simple example of a common side effect of regulating many industries. The quality or safety requirements seem reasonable and often just good practice to existing operators. For new operators, especially those doing things differently (like running a free library) it can be a serious hurdle.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Laws that increase the barrier of entry to a particular market benefit the existing businesses in that market.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Still doesn't mean the law was written with the express purpose of keeping seed trades down.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Correct. This law sounds like it was written by lobbyists, but it may not have been.
- mmanfrin 12y ago
  It's not legal to get seeds from your neighbor if your neighbor is using seeds with any patented genes (a la Monsanto Soy beans). In fact, if seeds from your neighbor's field are blown over by the wind to your field, and you harvest those, you can be sued for patent infringement. Monsanto has done this and won. They even (in)famously hired Academi (nee Xe nee Blackwater) to find 'patent violators'.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    >Monsanto has done this and won. Well that's just not true. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      According to your link, seeds from Schmeiser's neighbor's field were blown into his field by the wind, he harvested them, and was successfully sued for patent infringement. So everything your parent comment stated was correct. There is an element omitted, which was that he harvested those seeds (in accordance with his established business practice of keeping seeds from his field) in the knowledge that they were Roundup resistant, since he had sprayed his field with Roundup to see what would happen, and what happened was some of his wheat lived. Roundup isn't patented or controlled in any way. So what would happen if I took up the hobby of growing a few patches of wheat every year and spraying them with Roundup? Over time, the magic of selection should produce Roundup-resistant wheat, which would be free of any Monsanto influence. Would I be violating Monsanto's IP? If you think I wouldn't be violating Monsanto's IP by growing, and selecting, my own Roundup-resistant wheat, take note that Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe myself doing in the thought experiment.
      - freehunter 12y ago
        He wasn't sued because the seeds blew into his yard. He was sued because he collected the seeds and grew nothing but those seeds, even knowing what they were. >Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe Yes he did. He didn't develop his own Roundup resistant seeds, he grabbed them from Mansanto plants. >the magic of selection It doesn't work like that. What you would end up with is years of nothing but dead plants until you get bored and forget about it. I don't want to defend Mansanto, but you're being ridiculous. This argument is repeated over and over and it's just not true.
trhway 12y ago
you have probably never watched this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=nv_sr_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=nv_sr_1
superuser2 12y ago
Water quality is already the subject of intense government regulation programs. Testing by government regulators is how we knew that the water from Lake Erie was unsafe to drink on Ohio during the algae bloom a few weeks ago, for example. In new construction (at least for public spaces) a water sample from the plumbing must pass chemical testing by the local government before it can be offered to the public.
just_observing 12y ago
from 2013 Recent comments from Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck imply that the world's water will soon come under the control of corporations like his. Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water is not a human right, but should be managed by business people and governing bodies. He wants water controlled, privatized, and delegated in a way that sustains the planet. http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestle_water_supply_domination.html http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestle_water_supply_domina...
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Here's some of his thoughts on water for investors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SEFL8ElXHaU#t=135 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SEF... And then his attempt at damage control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMA0_cLdeE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMA0_cLdeE
- Mindstormy 12y ago
  As much as I hate to say this, but I almost agree that there will need to be some form of oversight into how water is obtained from natural sources and then distributed. You can see all of the crazy issues going on right now in California due to the current drought. However, I also see water as a basic human right, and should not restrict anyones access to it, but these topics get very murky when we start discussing the needs of the many for sustenance, and the needs of the many for I want my lawn to be green or I want to bottle it and resell it.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    ...or more pertinently, I want to flood the desert to grow rice in the California central valley.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    There is already extensive oversight. There are places where homeowners don't have the right to the rain that falls on their roof. There are things like the Great Lakes Compact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact There are rules governing what a waste water treatment plant can output (especially around things like phosphorus). On a river, one town's waste water is the next town's source water. New York City owns large tracts of land to help protect its water supply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_syst... http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/ http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/ There are also usually pretty strict laws in force anywhere surface water is used for drinking water (you see watershed signs for that). Of course new and changing interests will require lots of changes to the way the oversight it done, and it anyway isn't exactly perfect.
walterbell 12y ago
Related: water rights trading: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-water-idUSTRE7772GC20110808 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-water-idUSTRE77...
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
Agribusiness doesn't really care if some hippies are trading heirloom rutabaga seeds. This doesn't cost the companies anything, and they likely can't extort (even with the help of regulations) any significant money from the hippies. This is "bureaucracy gone wild". It was bad before, but now we'd been having these chumps brainstorm Hollywood thriller movie plots for 10 years on how Osama bin Laden might destroy Hawaii's pineapple industry by importing hummingbirds... And so of course they're paranoid of little old ladies trading tomato seeds at a public library. Nevermind that the amount of seeds transferred/grown in this fashion can only be the tiniest fraction of the seeds blowing around in the wind and germinating naturally... by god their going to save us in true movie action hero fashion. By disallowing seed trading among hobbyist gardeners.

freehunter 12y ago

To me it didn't sound like lobbying, but laws that didn't take into account that people might give away seeds for free. It's a good law for knowing that the seeds you buy are good quality, but poor for centralized community seed exchanges, which are a pretty new thing. In the past you would just go to your neighbor and get some seeds (which is still legal).

Myrth 12y ago
I think he talks not about laws themselves but overzealous unreasonable enforcement, that is a result of lobbying
Zikes 12y ago
If your neighbor's seeds are from Monsanto I don't think it's legal.
njharman 12y ago
Lobbyists often write the laws http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620... Google for many more examples.
netcan 12y ago
But it would have made it illegal for you neighbour to sell you some seeds. This is actually a good, simple example of a common side effect of regulating many industries. The quality or safety requirements seem reasonable and often just good practice to existing operators. For new operators, especially those doing things differently (like running a free library) it can be a serious hurdle.
seanflyon 12y ago
Laws that increase the barrier of entry to a particular market benefit the existing businesses in that market.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Still doesn't mean the law was written with the express purpose of keeping seed trades down.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Correct. This law sounds like it was written by lobbyists, but it may not have been.
mmanfrin 12y ago
It's not legal to get seeds from your neighbor if your neighbor is using seeds with any patented genes (a la Monsanto Soy beans). In fact, if seeds from your neighbor's field are blown over by the wind to your field, and you harvest those, you can be sued for patent infringement. Monsanto has done this and won. They even (in)famously hired Academi (nee Xe nee Blackwater) to find 'patent violators'.
- freehunter 12y ago
  >Monsanto has done this and won. Well that's just not true. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    According to your link, seeds from Schmeiser's neighbor's field were blown into his field by the wind, he harvested them, and was successfully sued for patent infringement. So everything your parent comment stated was correct. There is an element omitted, which was that he harvested those seeds (in accordance with his established business practice of keeping seeds from his field) in the knowledge that they were Roundup resistant, since he had sprayed his field with Roundup to see what would happen, and what happened was some of his wheat lived. Roundup isn't patented or controlled in any way. So what would happen if I took up the hobby of growing a few patches of wheat every year and spraying them with Roundup? Over time, the magic of selection should produce Roundup-resistant wheat, which would be free of any Monsanto influence. Would I be violating Monsanto's IP? If you think I wouldn't be violating Monsanto's IP by growing, and selecting, my own Roundup-resistant wheat, take note that Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe myself doing in the thought experiment.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      He wasn't sued because the seeds blew into his yard. He was sued because he collected the seeds and grew nothing but those seeds, even knowing what they were. >Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe Yes he did. He didn't develop his own Roundup resistant seeds, he grabbed them from Mansanto plants. >the magic of selection It doesn't work like that. What you would end up with is years of nothing but dead plants until you get bored and forget about it. I don't want to defend Mansanto, but you're being ridiculous. This argument is repeated over and over and it's just not true.

trhway 12y ago

you have probably never watched this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=nv_sr_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=nv_sr_1

superuser2 12y ago

Water quality is already the subject of intense government regulation programs. Testing by government regulators is how we knew that the water from Lake Erie was unsafe to drink on Ohio during the algae bloom a few weeks ago, for example. In new construction (at least for public spaces) a water sample from the plumbing must pass chemical testing by the local government before it can be offered to the public.

just_observing 12y ago

from 2013 Recent comments from Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck imply that the world's water will soon come under the control of corporations like his. Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water is not a human right, but should be managed by business people and governing bodies. He wants water controlled, privatized, and delegated in a way that sustains the planet. http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestle_water_supply_domination.html http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestle_water_supply_domina...

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Here's some of his thoughts on water for investors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SEFL8ElXHaU#t=135 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SEF... And then his attempt at damage control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMA0_cLdeE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMA0_cLdeE
Mindstormy 12y ago
As much as I hate to say this, but I almost agree that there will need to be some form of oversight into how water is obtained from natural sources and then distributed. You can see all of the crazy issues going on right now in California due to the current drought. However, I also see water as a basic human right, and should not restrict anyones access to it, but these topics get very murky when we start discussing the needs of the many for sustenance, and the needs of the many for I want my lawn to be green or I want to bottle it and resell it.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  ...or more pertinently, I want to flood the desert to grow rice in the California central valley.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  There is already extensive oversight. There are places where homeowners don't have the right to the rain that falls on their roof. There are things like the Great Lakes Compact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact There are rules governing what a waste water treatment plant can output (especially around things like phosphorus). On a river, one town's waste water is the next town's source water. New York City owns large tracts of land to help protect its water supply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_syst... http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/ http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/ There are also usually pretty strict laws in force anywhere surface water is used for drinking water (you see watershed signs for that). Of course new and changing interests will require lots of changes to the way the oversight it done, and it anyway isn't exactly perfect.

walterbell 12y ago

Related: water rights trading: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-water-idUSTRE7772GC20110808 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-water-idUSTRE77...

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

Agribusiness doesn't really care if some hippies are trading heirloom rutabaga seeds. This doesn't cost the companies anything, and they likely can't extort (even with the help of regulations) any significant money from the hippies. This is "bureaucracy gone wild". It was bad before, but now we'd been having these chumps brainstorm Hollywood thriller movie plots for 10 years on how Osama bin Laden might destroy Hawaii's pineapple industry by importing hummingbirds... And so of course they're paranoid of little old ladies trading tomato seeds at a public library. Nevermind that the amount of seeds transferred/grown in this fashion can only be the tiniest fraction of the seeds blowing around in the wind and germinating naturally... by god their going to save us in true movie action hero fashion. By disallowing seed trading among hobbyist gardeners.