In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:30:09 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

I would say that the gears should not belong to Monsanto or anyone at
all and that seed saving must be defined as a human right.

Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses?
What's the difference?

You don't sign a contract when you buy or receive a Jackson and Perkins'
rose.

Roses are (hopefully) perennials and only need to be purchased once,
which is kinda traditional.

Jackson and Perkins' roses won't change the genetic make-up of your
neighbor's roses.

Jackson and Perkins' roses won't lead to herbicide resistant weeds.

On the other hand, your neighbors are free to use any genes that have
wandered into their yard, should they want to start their own breeding
program.

There is no law to bar people from saving or selling Jackson and
Perkins' rose blossoms or seed.

That genetic marker means that, no matter how many years farmers spend
developing seed for their specific locations, no matter how different
the conserved seed is from the original Monsanto seed, the marker means
that, now, the rest of the genome belongs to Monsanto too.

Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if you wanted to fill an acre with
self-made grafts of Jackson and Perkins' roses, I doubt you would have a
problem, unless you went into a commercial venture to sell them. If you
grow an acre of Monsanto's "Franken-plants" from conserved seed, their
heavy-handed snitches and lawyers would be all over you, sales or not.

Yes, they both have 20 year patents, but you must see the qualitative
difference between controlling ornamental plants, and trying to
monopolize the right to grow food.

This is right in there with claiming the water from rainfall, just
because you bought the water company.
(see movie: "Corporation", Based on "The corporation : the pathological
pursuit of profit and power" by Joel Bakan.
Released as a motion picture in 2004.
In better libraries near you.)

As usual, "Bad laws make BAD citizens".

http://www.seedalliance.org/index.ph...eminisMonsanto
"There is a direct threat to our food system when we have a
preponderance of genetic resources controlled by institutions whose only
goal is profit," plant breeder Frank Morton expressed emphatically when
asked for his perspective on the Monsanto acquisition. He went on to
compare the present with the past, "When these services [breeding and
production] were diffused amongst many individuals and groups with
diverse motives, we had a much more diverse and healthy food system."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6768757.html
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of
(seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said
Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has
studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's
tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to
increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last
five years, and the end is not in sight."


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/op...=1&oref=slogin
But it's not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may
be a thing of the past.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm