"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:28:01 -0500, "Steve Peek"
wrote:

I say it's a basic, inherent human to isolate and propogate "better" food
regardless of the source.

I propose we agree to disagree on this point.
I do not believe in an inviolable right to ignore law for one's own
convenience.
That's all we're talking about here.

and I say the law disregards human rights.

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

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?

Dang, I always find what I'm looking for in the last place I look.

http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm
--
"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

GMOs should be grown in hermetically sealed enclosures, and the owner
should be fined if he lets them escape.

They should not be grown next to a farmer who saves seed, thats for sure.
Its just a matter of time until some bug comes along and kills 2/3 the
population. Then most of the worlds problems will be over.

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he
supposed to do?

What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument.
What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate
someone else's patented property.

There should be a law to protect others from Monsanto crops infecting
surrounding fields. This is were the big problem lies.
..

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:53:30 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

Dang, I always find what I'm looking for in the last place I look.

http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm

Thanks for that Billy. I'm glad they did the right thing, at least the
right thing by my standards.

I would not have felt the same if Fedco had packaged Monsanto's seeds
and sold them whilst pretending it was an "accident".
I believe there will soon be a watershed case to determine the
ultimate social responsibilities of Monsanto...and I really hope for
our planet's sake that they are stopped (that's not hyperbole) but I
don't think that Schmeiser's case is it.
I think and feel that Schmeiser was wrong both morally and legally.
shrug IMO.

Legally? Sure. Morally? Rules in a knife fight?
--
"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

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:48:30 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

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.

A patent, or more accurately the enforcement of patent, is not
dependent upon contractual agreement.

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.

Really? There's absolutely no chance of that? Source, please.
Now you are asking me to prove a negative. It would be better for you to
prove the positive.


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.

Not patented ones...
Do you know which watermelons taste the sweetest?

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

But there is a law that prevents the propagation of their roses
without consent.

And there are laws about tearing tags off of mattresses, jay walking,
and how much wine a home winemaker can make. Not many people are going
to lose sleep about them, unless it is done flagrantly.


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.

Whether or not you would "have a problem" is not the test.
The fact of the matter is were one to do as you suggested, they would
be in violation of patent and subject to J&P's relief request(s).

As would the people who copy movies for themselves. These are called
"bread crumb" sins.

But there are no laws against the $600,000,000 from the health insurance
companies that went into politicians pockets in the last two years. Hmmm.

No laws for a "Peace Candidate" who becomes a war monger or calls for
"Change you can believe in", and does the same ol', same ol'.

ACORN gets cut off from federal spending, but weapon suppliers who
rip-off the government get new contracts. Hmmm.
-----
http://civileats.com/2009/04/30/you-...-say-monsanto/

You Say Tomato, I Say Monsanto
April 30th, 2009 By Vanessa Barrington

Scientific American recently published an article called How to Grow a
Better Tomato: The Case against Heirloom Tomatoes. The author details
how plant breeders are going about saving heirloom tomatoes from their
own fatal flaws. The article was written in a combative tone with the
author seemingly intent on provoking a knee-jerk reaction from lovers of
good, real food not managed under laboratory conditions. It worked. The
article garnered 80 comments, most from home gardeners taking issue with
the errors peppering in the article like tomato seeds on a cutting
board. The piece even provoked comments from some of the people in the
article--namely employees of Monsanto. Seeing the name Monsanto connected
with the concept of "improving" yet another food, makes it a little
difficult to be neutral, but I'm going to try to look at this article
with an open mind.

The author says, "heirlooms are actually feeble and inbred--the defective
product of breeding experiments that began during the Enlightenment and
exploded thanks to enthusiastic backyard gardeners from Victorian
England to Depression-era West Virginia. Heirlooms are the tomato
equivalent of the pug--that "purebred" dog with the convoluted nose that
snorts and hacks when it tries to catch a breath."

.. . .

Both the plant breeder and the Monsanto PR person saw fit to comment on
the article for their own reasons due to misstatements in the article,
such as the assertion that hybrid seeds are sterile. They are not. Since
the article ran, the editor has changed some of the offending passages
(marked by asterisks). The comment by Monsanto's PR person stated that
they didn't like the title of the piece because they are doing what they
are doing for the love of heirlooms....because they really want to save
them.
And that's when we get to the real point. The company that brought us
PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, tried to patent the pig, and has unleashed a
litany of misery worldwide doesn't want to save heirloom tomatoes for
us. They want to patent and own them. Though the company has met with
resistance to nearly every product it has tried to sell worldwide, it
just keeps plugging along like a nightmarish telemarketer on endless
redial. Monsanto won't stop until they own every seed on the planet.
This article in Grist from last year estimates that with Monsanto's 2008
acquisition of Dutch tomato breeding company, De Ruiter Monsanto may now
control as much as 85% of the US tomato market. Even though the PR
person states in the comment section that Monsanto is doing this for
commercial gardens, not home gardeners, I think it might be prudent for
all home gardeners to lock up your heirloom tomato seeds in a safe place
and watch which way the wind blows.
--
"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

In article . com,
says...
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:48:30 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

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.

I do, and have publically stated that I do, abhor Monsanto's business
model.

Supporting them on patent rights amounts to supporting their business
model.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

In article , says...

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he
supposed to do?

What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument.
What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate
someone else's patented property.

There should be a law to protect others from Monsanto crops infecting
surrounding fields. This is were the big problem lies.

There are supposed to be buffer fields to do that.

*They*don't*work* and there is constant pressure to reduce the size of
the buffers.

GM rapeseed/canola *has escaped* and is *growing in the wild as a weed*
so there's no stopping it and no controlling it. Of course it's more
prevalent in canola growing districts. (The core area of my city isn't a
canola district and it crops up here.)

Monsanto has never been naive enough to believe that they could stop the
genes from spreading. Buffer zones can slow it, not arrest it as noted
above. The reason they've focused on bullying farmers is that they know
the gene is going to escape and farmers are an easily mangled(sic)
target; a strategic pinch-point, if you will.

Monsanto has enough smart, if evil minds to have worked it out ahead of
time. Every action Monsanto launches in protection of its patent has to
be seen within this context. --If I put myself in their planners'
position I would see the spread as reasonable leverage to put more
pressure on the buffer zones *because* the gene has escaped into the
wild and the buffer zones have become irrelevant.

The question that I think has to be asked at all levels is, "Is it
reasonable to assume that at the outset, Monsanto could have predicted
the spread of the GM canola/rapeseed gene far beyond the borders of
licensed farms to other farms and into the wild?"

If yes, and I believe the answer is yes, then the patent should be
revoked, precedent set, and Monsanto held accountable in a significant,
non-costofdoingbusiness way.

Time's up. Gotta run.