Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Prohibited: Comparison photos of GM/non-GM
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000 Technology Agreement "[...] But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document -- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the contract and goes home. [...] The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to any other person. This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do independent research on the genetically modified crops without Monsanto's express permission. Friendly university scientists with a Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be denied access. The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who violate Monsanto's decrees. Farmers who save the seed for replanting must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee. This is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court. This part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees and other costs of enforcement. [...]" And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research. There is no problem getting Monsanto seed for research or a farmer doing his own comparison. Every farmer knows what he is signing. He is signing away his right to do research unless approved. Doing one's own comparison is one thing but you cannot share that data with others if you recognise a deficiency. You don't run a business that controls millions of dollars worth of land and machinery and not know what you are doing. You may claim that as a defense but a farmer in the US that is still in business is not that dumb. I know they have to look in keeping with `trends'. They have to look a good farmer, i.e. follow the subtle suggestion that farmers should have tidy fields - no other plants in them at all. I farmed before breeders could protect their intellectual property and the cotton progress was slow. As soon as the plant protection act passed there was an immediate increase in choices private breeders had been holding back waiting for it to pass. A real increase or a decrease? The choices were out there, many of them if you went out to look for them. Then after patents I guess eveyone would concentrate on fewer main varieties, sold by subtle pressures, too, maybe. I read from the 1929 Encyclopaedia Brittanica about many types of cotton. I suggest that modern spinning technology could be taking a look back at them. Crops were found to suit the local climate, then seasonal weather variations would rarely diminish a crop by a quarter or third, never a half. Interesting the statement that the fiber takes almost nothing from the soil. Cotton growers started getting the some of the progress that hybrid corn farmer had been getting for years. Hybrid cotton doesn't work as well as corn because you get so few seed per acre and the hybrid vigor isn't there as it is in corn. The only reason they use it in Asia is to protect their property. If you are talking about hybrids between new world and old world cotton they are almost two different plants. If you don't like private breeders raise some funds for public breeders. My state shut their cotton program down 10 years ago. Texas has one man working on cotton. If the public sector won't do it you best be glad the private sector does. I fear that too much work is going into the relatively small number of breeds currently available. In New Zealand there has been work to save species of birds from extinction. There and eslewhere in the world it has been found that when a bird population drops below about fifty then forever after the breeding is closer to inbreeding and eggs are more likely to break. That has been tested by deliberate inbreeding of small colonies which are not endangered, too. As well as diverse species of crop plants it is important to have diversity of genetic potential within species I would say. I feel governments, our representatives, are better able to manage such situations if we persuade them. Private breeders will spread the currently in vogue one or two vary widely, then what happens? And selecting from GM experiments tends to produce much purer strains in certain respects of lack, I would say. In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life. Sakellarides, Mitafifi, Yannovitch, Kidney cotton, Pernambuco, Maranham, Ceara, Aracaty, MaceioInnivelly, Broach, Hinganghai, Dharwar, Amraoti, Bengal, Sin, Kumpta, Nurma or Deo, some names which might stimulate some dreams in someone. I am talking about varieties not breeds. Hybrid are among varieties. Discussions with you are pointless you don't understand the language. Gordon |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why some wildflowers prohibited in certain states? | Lawns | |||
Drough Orders- what exactly is prohibited? | United Kingdom | |||
Prohibited orchid substances (was bare-root plants) | Orchids | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM | sci.agriculture | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture |