Slashdot Mirror
Patented Food Threatens Crop Improvements
g8orade writes: "This NYT article presents the increasingly difficult path researchers in public arenas (universities) have distributing the results of their efforts, because of patents held on the genetic structures of food crops.
Stallman makes a big case for distinguishing between copyright and patents, but anyone want to start the Free Food Foundation?"
It's called the Seed Savers Exchange. Folks who trade seeds of open pollinated (non-hybrid seeds. No copyrights, no patents. Ever.
In principle it sounds pretty bad, but when it's actually applied in the real world, the problems aren't as horrible as they'd seem. Most research isn't being done by universities anymore. It's being done by private corporations. Whatever your philosophy about the behavior of the modern corporation, we can both agree that universities and their place within our society today are in steep decline. As enrollment has dropped and employment opportunities that do not require degrees have grown, the university experience is about to wink out. To protect the interests of these scientists is therefore a quixotic attempt to hold onto the remnants of a disappearing past.
Is this the end of the world? No. If scientists are having trouble publishing their research to a rapt audience (journal readers), then they can simply seek a new environment (corporation) where they can publish their research to an equally important and rapt audience (fellow corporate team members). They will still have all the benefits of publishing (social status, royalties) but without the legal hassle (corporations protect their own) and for significantly greater salaries (let's face it, universities can't afford to pay good salaries anymore).
Adaptation, evolution, extinction, repropagation. We're doing just fine.
Why? Because of less stress, a more interresting job, more free time... They know they will earn less money, big deal! They are going to work twice less than someone in the corporate world. And that's valuable... (especially if you plan to have a life outside your work)
Besides, reasearch does not work in a pure corporate model. There has often been 20-30 years (in the last century) between a theory and the time it get's applied. Which company will invest in a reasearch where they will have to wait that long before getting any return on investment?
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
The real threat isn't nearly as spectacular, but is simply that one of these new breeds of crop will contain a defective gene which will cause it to be susceptible to some problem.
May not happen right away, but say perhaps in 40 years, something happens and all corn in the US is hit by some problem which wipes it out because of this genetic weakness.
There are groups in the USDA, in Universities, etc. who work specifically to keep seed samples of the original species so that they are not lost.
You know, if you were starving and a new modified strain of wheat was available to help... I doubt you'd be bitching.
One of the luxuries of being fat and lazy is you don't have to worry about eating, I guess.
I hate to break it to you but all gmo food is bad because we are unsure. Eat real food (tm)
The problem with that "logic" is that "real food" hasn't been tested either. You may say "Well, natural things don't need to be tested; everyone knows that they are safe". But history shows us that products from totally non-gmo'ed plants can be unhealthy. People smoked totally non gmo-ed tobacco for thousands of years before even considering the possibility that it was unhealthy.
And French people drank a neurotoxic liquor called "absinthe" (made from the natural wormwood tree) for several hundred years without noticing the ill effects.
In this case organisations like the Seed Savers Network are protecting examples of prior art by ``mass copying, uploading, downloading and distributing''. Kind of outdoes RFC 1149 or RFC 2549.
The saved seeds are far superior collections of genetic material, in that the patented seeds are closely bred (ie, ``thin'' genetic material, won't breed true) and/or genetically modified, so almost always require special (expensive, proprietary) fertilisers, pesticides etc ad nauseum in order to produce their huge yields.
Finally, the whole idea is an open source/sharing kind of thing, very much in tune with the current software revolution.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Until a sufficient amount of GM is done to recreate it, of course. Once a species is gone (especially a plant species), there it still likely to be some DNA left over, making its restoration relatively trivial as GM goes. Even if there isn't any residual DNA, a certain level of GM technology should allow the necessary gene sequence to be recreated.
(Not that I'm really disagreeing with your point, mind you, just pointing out a factual error.)
Not to nitpick, but "killer" bees weren't artificially created or genetically engineered; they were just imported into the Western hemisphere from Africa, and are taking over because they're fiercer than the normal bees we have over here. It's still a huge problem, but not necessarily a genetic engineering issue.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Last month there was a Frontline/Nova special on PBS called Harvest of Fear. This is a very complex issue, the show presented a well thought out and balanced view of the issues. I suggest anyone concerned with this issue watch this show if they can find it. You can buy it from PBS for $20, though it says backordered. Just search for Harvest of Fear, can't post link to the item directly because of lameness filter.
Q.
Do you have a source about the third world countries growing cash crops instead of food?
I saw a documentary about GM foods on PBS (Harvest of Fear, I gave links in another post). They showed an African scientist developing a disease resistant sweet potatoe. Doubled or tripled the yield. The poor farmers they showed who were basically just farming to barely feed their families would greatly benefit from this. They could cut down the number of farmers for a village and send some of their kids to school.
Q.
OK, so isn't this a big argument for GM foods? They can continue the cash crops and continue the same amount of sustenance farming but get more out of it with GM crops. They feed their people and continue their economic growth.
Q.
The real problem is that even universities have started thinking of research as a patent creator rather than as a publication creator. "Publish or perish" was a doctrine that certainly had it's problems, but it did create public knowledge, and foster the desimination of same. Research to make a patent is designed to hide the results, and to slow down the desimination of knowledge. This is quite antithetical to the traditional position of the university. I think it may be even worse than the government controls that came with federal subsidies. Not that the controls were removed when the subsidies were removed. (Though they generally were eased a bit.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This would most definitely kill Stallman's favourite motto:
"Free as in Freedom, not as in Free Beer. No, not that Free Beer, the other Free Beer, the one wher you don't pay"
Or the other way around, imagine the Free Food Foundation guys:
"Free as in Free Software, not as in Free Beer".
India Fights U.S. Basmati Rice Patent
... Basmati rice, sought-after for its fragrant taste, was developed by Indian farmers over hundreds of years, but the Texan company RiceTec obtained a patent for a cross-breed with American long-grain rice. RiceTec was granted the patent on the basis of aroma, elongation of the grain on cooking and chalkiness. However, the Indian government last week filed 50,000 pages of scientific evidence to the US Patents and Trademarks Office, insisting that most high quality basmati varieties already possess these characteristics.
... There are currently more than 200 patents granted on rice, almost exclusively to US and Japanese companies. It is currently not possible to patent staple foods and crops in Europe or developing countries but a European directive is about to change that in the EU.
cpeterso
From the article:
"One thing people could argue is, How can a company own the most important food crop in the world?" said Dr. Rod A. Wing of Clemson University. "In Asia, rice is like a religion. To own a religion, so to speak, that's just a question. Can you do that? I don't think so."
I think L. Ron Hubbard has the answer to that one.
I'm sorry for those that do not see this as a great problem, yet this is part of a larger trend towards the bulding of fences against freedom of reasearch.
And, there is much more.
The trend to claim rights on food has gone beyond from covering really new food. Large companies are extending their grip on vegetables that exist since a long time and have also been able to stop some food importation from poor countries where such vegetables have been used for a long time.
A strongly hit country, for instance, is India. Someone has actually patented or tried to patent Basmati Rice, black pepper, mustard, etc... all eaten for centuries.
Oh! I forgot to say that these well-known companies often are the same ones that introduced genetically-modified food in Europe illegally, for years, relying on the late intervention of law enforcerers (it's always been more profitable to pay a fine later rather than stopping a good business...)
I do not exactly know about the situation in the USA, but in Italy and in Europe the problem is more felt from a general point of view than from the point of view of university studies, which are not affected so much.
I think that we should broaden our perspective and really understand what's going on because all of these facts are tightly related...
Recently, as part of the seminar I saw M.S. Swaminathan (father of "Green Revolution') and Timothy Reeves (Director of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)). They both spoke on agriculture technology in developing nations. First, they noted the large impact agriculture has on society; especially in developing countries where most of the population consists of farmers. They noted how improvements in wheat seeds have resulted in changing wheat production by an order of magnitude. For example, in just a few years India was able to increase its wheat production four-fold. Today, India is one of the largest exporters of wheat. This ability for developing countries to produce sufficient food is important to their own security and well-being. CIMMYT is a center that is devoted to creating and improving sustainable agriculture technology for developing countries. These goals are in stark contrast to those of developed countries, for example such as creating another more tasty variety of tomatoes. Instead, CIMMYT is focused on developing wheat and corn strains that are more nutritious and drought resistant. Two specific technologies that CIMMYT is focused on are asexual reproduction (apomixis) and no-till seeds. The use of apomixis would allow farmers to use the seeds from the last season's crop to plant for the next season, thus allowing farmers a measure of self-reliance. This contrasts with developments by multinational corporate agriculture companies who are designing plants that cannot reproduce, so new seeds must be purchased every year. Another important technology is the use of no-till seeds. This would allow people to grow their own food without having to rely on mechanized plows, instead they could just scatter the seeds. Thus, CIMMYT has developed agriculture technologies for people that conventional market economics would not serve. Moreover, it is difficult to see CIMMYT technologies, which are based upon empowerment and sustainability, in the same way Heidegger viewed technologies such as the power plant. Thus I think it is important for us to remember that humans can change technology for positive outcomes. What iS CIMMYT
They have a patent on the 'Special Sauce' used in the Big Mac, don't they?
dave
Bullshit. Research must ALWAYS be done if you want your company to have an edge over the competition.
Get out into the real world someday and see how wrong you are.
I used to work for one of those evil drug companies. It costs roughly $100-250 million and 8-12 years of time to get a drug on the market. What possible incentive is there to spend that kind of bucks if a generic drug maker can copy it the day it becomes legal? You have no edge whatsoever over your competition by doing all this work: all you get are the costs.
Patent is utterly necessary for this kind of work. Banning it would stop most research in its tracks.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Yeah, them and everyone else who combined a little relish with Thousand Island dressing...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Why did i think of Bill Gates when i read that? Maybe because he argues so much like UGGTHUG.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
That's a point I don't understand. They may own any modified rice crops they come up with, but they can't own rice, just because they sequenced its genetic code. At least I hope so ...
...
It's a good thing US IP laws don't apply in Asia
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
This can, of course, never work, since everyone knows TANSTAAFL. But, of course, that still leaves breakfast and dinner open for discussion.
- Mike
Well, here's a good start. That's just the GDP breakdown for Kenya for 1997-98. To be fair, I'm only going to discuss what I know, and since your argument was about yams in Africa, this particular example is probably apropos. Notice first that the top GDP producers are agriculture and tourism, and foremost among their exports are tea, coffee, and "horticultural products" (notably carnations). Sisal is also in the top 10.
Just from having spent some time there, I can tell you that there are huge tracts of pinapple, coffee, tea, and sisal, all of which are cash crops. If you look at that page again, you'll also notice that their main sources of imports are the EU, UK, and US, and their main imported products are machinery and refined petroleum. This is the typical 3rd world scenario: export raw materials at fluctuating world market prices, and import processed products at significant markups. This dichotomy demands lots of cash cropping to maintain the supply to the first world countries.
Now, this doesn't mean that subsistence farming is gone, or even necessarily rare. But when I was there, there was a famine in northeast Kenya, and the farmers in the central province couldn't be bothered to stop their cash crop production to help. Ironically enough, there was also a glut of corn on the world market at the time, and so the farmers who DID grow that were going broke at the same time people 200 miles away were starving.
---
Well, it's not exactly that, but Native Seeds/SEARCH is an important step. Their goal is to "conserve, distribute and document the adapted and diverse varieties of agricultural seed and their wild relatives" in the Southwest US.
These hearty species have adapted to life here over thousands of years (well, as far back as you want to go, actually, but the climate has changed radically in that period), and are already resistent to the blights found here. Plus biodiversity is maintained, so no particular scourge should wipe out an entire species.
Oh yeah, and you're free to plant as many times as you want after buying the seeds. In fact, you're encouraged to cultivate your own line.
---
Sure, there are periodic famines when arid areas have droughts. In times like these, the real problem is with food distribution. Particularly, the problem is that they often try to ship (ie) corn meal from the US to east africa, and big surprise, it's rotten when it arrives. It'd be nice if they had a more regional food supply to tap into, wouldn't it? Except eveyone else in east africa is busy growing cash crops so they can "benefit" from participation in the global economy instead of growing adequate food for their region.
So the starvation excuse for GM is just that: an excuse. There are many less threatening ways to feed the world's population. Furthermore, regarding your "fat" comment: in fact, the most overweight people in western nations are the lower classes, and they suffer disproportionately many health problems on account of this. The "big corporate fatcat" metaphor is tired and outdated.
---
Sort of. It has been the case for quite a long time already in chemistry/drug research that companies that make new chemicals/biologicals spend a bit of time and money researching if they have infranged a patent. This is normal and reasonnable since they themselves would like to patent their discovery and make money out of it. So if you want to use someone else's discovery, you pay them or you wait since patents don't last for ever.
Now, I agree with you that this strategy is becoming more and more difficult since all kind of crap is being patented. But, maybe it is so because more patentable discoveries are made. Maybe all this is good news. Maybe many scientists can at last make more money than lawyers and doctors (in medecine). But still, you are quite right that too many broad patents are issued.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I quote from the article: California strawberry growers canceled a project to develop a strawberry resistant to fungus for fear that they would not be allowed to let the strawberry be grown commercially, said Dr. Alan Bennett, executive director of the office of technology transfer at the University of California, which discovered the fungal resistance gene.
Do you think they are trying to save the world from hunger? With strawberry! Yeah right!
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
you, the eater, by eating our genetically modified and/or enhanced food, agree to the following terms:
1: buying and eating our food does not constitute ownership of the food. we own the food at all stages and permutations. yes, that means we'll own your crap, too.
2: the food may or may not be nutritional.
3: unforseen genetic diseases caused by eating our food products are not our fault.
4: you are what you eat, and since we own the food (see #1 above) that helped build you, we own you. report to soylent facility green for immidiate assimilation.
i worry that someday, a serious version of this "license" will become a reality. as corporations (and some individuals) continue to try and own every small aspect of existence, what chance do we have?
Enrollment has not dropped. In fact, it has increased 14% between 1990 and 1999.
Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/00trends/EA1.pdf (page 25)
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
One possible solution to this is the creation of a rights clearinghouse much like BMI or ASCAP for music publishing rights, combined with a compulsory licensing scheme with set royalty rates.
This is basically the solution that music publishers and music licensees came up with years ago (or that the government came up with for them) to solve a similar problem with music licenses. Similar schemes are being proposed for AIDS drugs and other medicines and for online music.
Of course this doesn't solve the myriad other problems associated with GM foods and restrictive patents, but it's a start.
Someone already mentioned Monsanto v. Schmeiser. I'll just add that genes can be transmitted from species to species with germ and virii-interactions. So basically, a "patented gene" can be copied from one field to another in lots of different (but statistically less probable) ways. This is just another corporate (silly humans) attempt to restrain freedom of information, which is The underlying principle of development in our universe.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The problem you describe is even more contaminating than just breeding. Groups of genes can be transmitted between bacteria, virii and hosts in lots of different ways. However, that nature itself is playing with genetic experiments out in the wild IS reassuring. Because maybe it's not that bad, even though our activities WILL alter nature in more profound ways than ever?
The largest problem is perhaps that we alter the course of evolution so that some species get totally unbalanced. This will probably strike back at agriculture itself, more land will be useless and more trees need to be cut down. For example, the genes for super-growth and pesticide-resistance could just as well be transmitted to non-crop plants.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Wrong!!
When you drink absynthe, you immediatly notice the ill effects, as they are what makes this liquor really different.
I drank it once without knowing what it was and the state it put me in had nothing to do with "regular" alcohol. And for this exact reason, although it was a really pleasant effect, I never drank it again.
But you're even wronger if you think that the fight against gmo is based on the fear they could induce cancer or such.
The concern is that they could have side effects on the ENVIRONMENT as a whole.
Also I've heard many people saying that ecological farming is about better food.
Wrong, it's about healthier soil first. Healthier food is a consequence. Better food a matter of taste.
"One thing people could argue is, How can a company own the most important food crop in the world?" said Dr. Rod A. Wing of Clemson University.
Damn; which companies? I want to buy shares!
P.S. here's the working address for those who don't know to replace the www with channel:5 CR OP.html
http://channel.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/science/1
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I've got to admit that it's companies like Monsanto that took my Radical Libertarianism (you know, "die government die! stabbity stabbity!", Libertarianism) and shattered it over it's kneecap. You would have to be a fool to give a company like this any more influence over the way the world is run.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
The so-called "killer bees" (African honeybees, actually) were not artificially created. They're native to Africa, but were accidentally introduced into South America.
And they're not actually a danger to plants. They pollenate just the same as any other bee.
The only real impact they have on the economy is that they're eventually going to be the replacement for the honeybees we use now in the US, and for a very good reason. There's a mite called the Varroa Mite which infests honeybees and basically kills them. The African honeybees have a much higher resistance to the mites than the European honeybees which US apiculturists use now.
The only problem is that the African honeybees don't form very large hives and don't seem to build up large stores of honey. It's an obvious adaptation to a warmer climate and much shorter winters, but makes them less-than-optimal for honey production.
That little difficulty is solveable. I imagine 10000 years ago some caveman was whining about releasing genetically-modified chickens into the environment too.
Regardless of your use of boldface type, you offer no proof of any of these assertions. As others have pointed out, genetic modification has been going on for over one hundred years and no planet shattering catastrophes have occurred. Do you have any examples (besides your killer bee one which is shown below to be flawed) of genetic modification leading to environmental damage? Do they outweigh the benefits that GM has brought?
Physics, Cosmology and
Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. The intention of importing the bees was to get them to mate with american honey bees to make a new bee that was tame and produced more honey. The experement showed that they cannot do that because the non-sterile pure-african bee eggs hatch before the cross american-african bee eggs. The non-sterile african bees then take control of the nest and the pure-american and cross american-african bee that have not yet hatched are destroyed. The colony swarms and you are left with a pure-african strain.
Let me wrap it up: Successful breeding between african and american bees have never occurred, in fact it is nearly impossible for it to occur! The african bees that we have in this country are exactly the same as the ones in africa. They are a natural species and nothing that "Man" did (besides importing them onto a continent that didn't have them before).
Home, home and deranged...
People have been banging rocks together
for thousands of years. Why should I be
concerned when they bang together subcritical
masses of plutonium?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I believe someone else already holds the patent on the genetic structures of worms.
First I think we should start the usual way with 'illegal' material, namely dedicate aheckuvalot of web space to it!
/Smuffe
www.g3n3ticf00ds3q3ncz.com, www.illegalGFS.net and www.wareZf00d.tv are probably happening as you read this.
After this initial blizzard of downloading/warezing genetic food sequences, someone will probably recognize the fact that this stuff is too hard to find, and write their own GFS sharing program, Foodster, and then they'll probably get sued. Then the food sequences will misstakenly be submitted as evidence, and then they will be public record. And we'll all live happily ever after.
It was my belif that you could only patent INVENTIONS, no jsut thing you find. Imagine if newton patented the use of his laws, and we all had to pay royalties for moving. Bit extremee but patneting GENES, they didn't MAKE THEM, they jsut found them, its insane. They shoudl be able to atent particualr modified plants they make, but the wholesale patneting of individual genes that might be useful is jsut plain wrong, its as bad as domain name squatting if notworse, because you can still have a company wihtout the domain....
.... created with the more traditional genetic modification methods - 'breeding' and 'hybridization'.
You're essentially trusting your health to the tender mercies of phage viruses and plant and animal chemical defenses, the end product of a no-holds-barred chemical weapons war which has raged unchecked over the surface of our planet for billions of years.
If you really want to protect yourself ( including the environment in which you have parity with the critters' predatory abilities ), then militate against unrestricted air and ship travel - demand that they get decontaminated as if they were returning from another biologically active planet. All humans have done is defeat space-separation barriers between these smaller areas of battle, precipitating tests of their particular biochem technologies on novel ecosystems.
Oh, and we've insisted that these nanowarriors travel by chewing our way willy-nilly through wild areas without any bio-reconnaissance. Want some kudzu with your walking catfish? Dig in before the West Nile Virus or Brazilian purpuric fever get you.
Bon appetit, and here's to absinthe friends.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Little can stop whoever wants to from reading the DNA code in product X, replicating it, and reverse-engineering it. Monsanto can't pull a M$ by embracing and extending the encoding (ACGT) or protocol (chromosomes) and making them 'incompatible'. And the reverse engineers can take out the jellyfish-glow or whatever components make the stuff identifiable from a distance, thus no Colombian spray-plane crop-clobbering is really feasible.
What are the implications of competition using an extensible language which results in source that will always stay open in every product? Even denaturing will have limited use, since the proteins we want would likewise get offed in many cases.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
This post should be rated as -1 Troll. Starvation = food distribution and economic problems. It's != lack of food. And, I weigh 135 pounds and work 6 days a week thank you very much Mr. Ignoramous
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
There are groups in the USDA, in Universities, etc. who work specifically to keep seed samples of the original species so that they are not lost.
Oh, that comforts me (not). Why don't we just use those "original species" in the first place? The parent to your post is right - no one is looking at the "playing God is going to FUBAR our veggies" factor.
Why are we so set on genetically modifiying our veggies in the first place?
It has NO benefit to humans, and a HUGE potential to fsck things up with our [health|crops|economy]. Oh wait, I forgot, corporations can make more money... never mind, forget I was even here!
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Rural Advancement Foundation International has a lot of information on this subject. They logiclly and coherently address the issues that patenting biologicals has for third world farmers and the small farmer in general.
Thanks for the info that I just have to put "channel" in front of my urls. You may be goatse.cx troll, but that added another automated change to websites I view... THANKS!
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
To that end, patents should be for unique items/processes. When the end result of said patent is reproduced through other means, that patent should be nullified.
Can you imagine it if some neanderthal had managed to patent the wheel?
UGGTHUG--"Me Make Round Thingy!"
ATHGAR--"Me Want Round Thingy!"
UGGTHUG--"I are Patent. You No Have Unless Pay UGGTHUG!"
ATHGAR--"Me Make Round Thingy Then. No Pay UGGTHUG!"
UGGTHUG--"ATHGAR Can No Make Round Thingy with UGGTHUG Patent!"
ATHGAR--"Where This Patent?"
UGGTHUG--Points to head
Insert repeated sounds of club whacking and screaming here.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Attn Moderators...
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Actually a uncle of mine owns a lake. The lake lost water recently and the surrounding properties got larger because of this.
He asked the property owners to compensate him. Since they refused he took them to court and - won.
The point is that they do have a benefit from the shrinking lake - even if they didnt ask for it.
Whether or not genetically modified crops are actually a benefit remains to be seen.
When the rights to certain food belongs to the Corporate fat cats - there is something very wrong with the world.
It is all morally iniquitous - Why do governments let them get away with it?
WIPO.org.uk - see statement from Secretary Don 'Littlechick' Evans, US DoC (Department of Chickens). It is about the authorities totally disrespect of your rights - to stop you using the words you wish on the Internet.
in Australia with GM canola crops, being grown for commercial, not scientific use. These crops are being grown in "secret" locations, and may be polluting the neighbourhood crops (with windblown pollen), but since their locations are not public, we won't really know. This has really pissed off anti-GM and organic crop growers, who feel that their business is at risk.
The island state of Tasmania here would like to be a GM free zone, which if it can be enforced legally, would provide them with a lot of protection, as they are not close to many landmasses.
There has also been dumping of a GM crop into a commercial rubbish tip.
There's the Seed Savers Exchange (SSE) based in Iowa, America and founded in 1975. They are particularly interested in "heirloom" seeds. You can become a member of Seed Savers and that gets you a bunch of publications every year.
This group alos has an organised arm called the Flower and Herb Exchange (FHE), which you can also purchase a membership for.
SSE has a Heritage Farm, a living historical museum of plan varieties. SSE also has a commercial store in Wisonsin, America.
Then there's Seed Savers Network (SSN) based in Byron Bay, Australia and founded in 1986. Their goal is to "preserve the diversity of our cultural plants". They have subscriptions of various kinds and have newsletters, seed exchange, a seed bank, workshops and they publish a handbook.
The SSN is setting up networks in the Solomon Islands, Tonga, The Caribbean and Cambodia. They also assisted the Southern African Seed Network (SASN) in setting up in Zimbabwe.
Then there's the Irish Seed Savers Association (ISSA), whose website is under construction. They are "dedicated to the location and preservation of traditional varieties of fruit, grain and vegetables".
The Seed Savers Aotearoa New Zealand (SSANZ), based in New Zealand and probably founded in the year 2000. Their goal is to "facilitate the sharing of information and resources between regional seed saving groups"
Seeds of Change (SOC) founded around 1989 in Sante Fe, New Mexico. SOC "is committed to improving the lives of this and future generations by preserving biodiversity and promoting the use of sustainable organic agricultural practices". They have a commercial store hosted at Yahoo, and a research arm close to Santa Fe. Their website has a lot of different sections and seems to be aimed at the average consumer.
Comox Valley Growers & Seed Savers (CVGSS), based in British Columbia, Canada. Their mission is "Conserve and preserve our plant heritage and diversity by encouraging participation in growing heritage and non-hybrid food crops and other plants". They have mail-order membership.
The Native Seed Savers Network (NSSN) is a Greening Australia project, based in New South Wales, Australia. Started in 1996, "the need for more detail on the appropriate use and management of dwindling areas of locally-native seed resources in the Sydney Basin prompted the development of this community-based native seed trading network"
Primal Seeds aims to:
- Inform and inspire people to take the protection of biodiversity and the creation of food security into their own hands.
- Support grassroots movements around the world who challenge agribusiness and promote food production based on diversity and community.
- Act as an information network.
- Promote seed saving, seed swaping, heritage, open-pollinated, rare, local and illegal seeds.
- Oppose the encroaching model of agriculture based on commodification, which leads to biotechnology, biopiracy, mass mechanisation, heavy chemical inputs and threatens the livelihood of the worlds farmers
Some other resources are:
Seeds of Texas' Vegetable Seed-Savers Handbook
Seed Savers Around The World
Is to genetically encrypt food. I can see it now, on the packaging of groceries... "This food only digestable if you are running MS Stomach v3.8.011 or higher."
- I'm making a page dedicated to procrastinators! I'll let you know when I get started.
The Seed Savers Exchange is one group that is devoted to the exchange of non-patented seed by hobbyists. They have a mission of preserving biodiversity in fruits and vegetables and helping members trade resources. Last years catalog had 11,000 varieties of non-patented seed for swap. The Flower and Herb Exchange is a related group for flower and herb seed (they share web resources with seedsavers.org). There is a membership fee to cover administrative costs - its free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
It's going on right now. Worse yet, it's international, so whoever among you out there is paranoid that corporations are trying to control the world, well, you're right.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The critical point here was that the research, in this case, was being funded by commercial strawberry growers. The patents that are already in place would prevent them from deriving profit from their research investment so they said, 'Why Bother?'.
I think the issue is much bigger than that though. Since this kind of research is built on top of previous (possibly patented) research in the field, there comes a point where all future research might cease, because enything they would achieve would be a derivitive of patented rearlier research results. This is a slippery slope. There needs to be much more stringent requirements implemented in the USPTO to prevent the issuance of patents for inappropriately broad (results of) areas of this type of research
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Now, isn't this a mass-media produced knee-jerk reaction? What about the fact that people have been genetically modifying plants for hundreds, if not thousands of years? How is this so different? Here's a little fact: the original 'corn' plant (found in the wild) has a single kernel on it. Think about that one.
Your assuming that Monsanto (or any other GMO) comapany is safe to eat in the first place. What makes you think the integrity, quality, and authenticity is better from using one of them?
I hate to break it to you but all gmo food is bad because we are unsure. Eat real food (tm)
The Lottery:
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Or Heirloom cultivars. It's what organic farmers rely on; many home gardeners as well. At this point in time, seed saving is a radical act! In fact, growing your own food and generating your own electricity are becoming some of the most radical actions one can perform.
Apparently Looge believes in open source. Not only open source of software, but open source of all patented materials so long as nothing bad will come of it. Take a look at all the various Distributions of Linux now. Think about how that would be if genetics were open source too. Things need *some* control, but to hand complete control (be it through patent, copyright or just because they've got it stuffed up their ass) over to a single owner is stupid because that introduces errors that that single owner may not think of. Free distribution of patented products will indeed help to destroy this. Looge hath decreed it, so let it be done.
You've got mail. Pattern baldness. - Crow
Now all we need is for McDonalds to patent the cheeseburger... frightening stuff! ;-)
One more case how strict patent hurts US. Americans cannot benefit from the result of the research to improve food production, while third world countries where US patent law doesn't apply could take advantage of it.
Richard Stallment think he can live with 3 or 5-year patent. Shorter patent period might really help solving the problems.
You go girl... protect that fucking karma...
It's sooo important to me. I got discount in Walmart; cops will not charge me for speeding; it increases the odds of getting chicks in party; and it looks really good in my CV.
How can one live with low karma?....Oops, sorry I didn't mean to offend you....
j/k...anyway, only morons would get offended by jokes.
Is to get inovations out in the public so that they can be studied... But since the whole patent system has been so twisted and corrupted over the years from what is written into the Constitution, I'm becoming of the opinion that they are no longer of any benefit to society.
"But corporations will no longer have any reason to fun research" opponents will say.
Bullshit. Research must ALWAYS be done if you want your company to have an edge over the competition.
And if patents don't actually make the invention any more available to the public (such as the patented "golden rice" that could feed the starving third world countries), what the hell good is their research anyway?
Maybe if that corporation made it possible for more people not to starve by releasing that IP, perhaps those people will later be able to BUY more of their other products...
Since we are subsidizing by force of government, corporate monopolies by granting patents, with little or no discernable benefits, then, I argue, patents should be abolished.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
...and that is to immediately and globally engage in mass copying, uploading, downloading and distributing of all copyrighted and patented materials. This is the only way we are going to prevent the powers that be from enacting increasingly Big Brother-type measures to ensure that their so-called intellectual property is not stolen. We must not allow this to happen. We must weaken them where it hurts the most, their pocket book. Otherwise our freedom is history.
The powers that be got their power and wealth from our money and our work. We allowed them to be what they are. Resist all Orwellian systems that take away your liberty a little bit at a time, one little law at a time. We can take it back. The internet is our weapon. Refuse to pay for any copyrighted music, software, patents, ideas, etc...
Copy it all and distribute it all! Reclaim your liberty!
The most direct analogy I can come up with is somebody making money by hacking up his own house for fire wood and selling it off. The problem is that this is impossible to stop. Drugs are tested for years for toxic and carcinogenic side effects. But it seems that one is free to modify a life form in a potentially dangerous and damaging way without any serious attempt at considering the cosequenses. Kind of brings to mind the old saying "You need a liscense for a dog, but they will let any ars*hole be a father!" or in this case a Geneticist. One possible scenario as I see it is this:
2) Because the corporate lobbyists have done a good job at greasing up politicians, we do not test the new potato.
3) The new GM potato goes into large scale production for 10 years.
4) After overcoming corporate coverups it is revealed by Scientists that the Insecticide in the GM potatos causes brain cancer in humans over long periods of consumption. But because long term studies are not cost effective in corporate opinion they were not done.
5) We are stuck with huge crops of a stapel food that is un-edable and worse still the genetic modification is one that makes it easyer for the GM potatoes to reproduce in the wild since they are all but immune to insect attacks making them all but impossible to irradicate.
6) Botanists make the discovery that the Insecticide gene has prolifreated into other domestic and wild potato plant species.
Now imagine the same being done to rice, wheat, barley, and other stapel crops. I have seen many scientific horror scenario's but this one is one of the few that really has me worried. Now that people with the mental competence of Microsoft developers are allowed to screw around with the genes of plants. How long before we will start to see people with the words; "Encoded by Microsoft!" and a M$ logo genitically ingrained into their skin? And more importantly what do we do when these people have a massive system faliure in the middle of a conversation? Will Microsoft Genetics INC equip its GM humans with a Reset button?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Not quite they were produced by crossbreeding two kinds of bees, african ones (i know) which produce alot of honey but are agressive and European ones (I think, the second species may have been an American one) which are more docile. The result was an even more agressive species than either of the originals. Selective breeding is simply a very primitive form of Genetic manipulation. The best example of that are the innumerable races of dogs we humans have produced.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
And they're not actually a danger to plants.
I did not say they are a danger to plants I said that they outcompete or agressively displace a number of less agressive specialist species pushing them to the brink of extinction. This is deteremental to some plants who are quite common in rainforests but can only be pollenated efficiently by a limited number of specialist bees but can not be pollenated by killer bees because, for example the plants anatomy does not allow it. The Ecosystems in Rainforests are extremely specialized and it is not uncommon for certain species of plants be unable to reproduce in the absence of highly specialized animals. In Australia for example there are species of plants who's seeds can not germinate until they have been through the intestinal tract of a certain bird. Remove the birds and see what happens to the forest. No amount of GM can solve that problem. Once a species is gone it is GONE!
The only problem is that the African honeybees don't form very large hives and don't seem to build up large stores of honey. It's an obvious adaptation to a warmer climate and much shorter winters, but makes them less-than-optimal for honey production.
The Killer bees are a hybrid of African and European bees that is at least as, if not even more agressive than either European of African bees and is a quite prolific honey producer. Being a hybrid they also form large hives like European bees and can easily kill a human being. Even biologists who deal with them regularly have respect for their agressiveness and ability to inflict multiple stings. I do not see why this should be such a boon to the economy if Scientists are worried about the spread of this speicies.
And I imagine 2000 years ago some barbarian was whining about how burning the Great Library of Aliexandria was a good idea. All that original thinking assembled in one place!?! SHOCKING? I also bet his descendants emigrated to the US and voted Republican.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What worries me is:
The effect of genemodifying crops goes way beyond health issues for humans and copy and patent rights. It also has implications in the area of Genetic Contamination of wild plants and animals and nobody seems to care . The Killer Bee issue has allready shown what can happen when an artificially created species escapes into the enviroment. These bees have more of less exterminated large highly specialized bee species in the Rainforests of south and central America. This is a partickularly serious concern since the loss of these native bees may cause the extinction of numerous species of trees an other plants that rely exclusively on their specialized bees for pollenation. Shure the effectss will not be apparent for a few decades so using G.W. Bush logic we will not have to worry about them. Long term thinking BAD!!! Short term thinking and greed GOOOOOD!!! But "Hear no evil see no evil" will not make these issues go away. These genetic problems will still emerge and later Generations, stuck with genetically contaminated foodcrops and wild geene-pools, will curse us for ignoring them.
Large scale genetic modification of Plants and animals is dangerous and we have no way of knowing what problems an uncontrolled genetic goldrush will cause in nature. Genetic modifications of any kind should be striclty controlled by the state and not by corporoations. Genetic contamination and the escape of genetically modified plants and animals into wild populations is impossible to reverse.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If George Washington Carver were alive today, he'd be litigated into anonymity. Perhaps we should start giving away Nobel prizes for greed, now that science for the good of mankind has been effectively abolished.
I'm talking about governement subsidised research, not university based. If government starts behaving like a private company, it won't help
and, as it seems nobody ever heard about that, patenting is not a way of hiding anythings. Indeed, patents are public, but legally yu can't copy. However it is a way not to loose stuff whenever it falls in the Public Domain, whereas secrets can be forgotten.. as an example, the Coca Cola recipe isn't patented.
There /is/ a major difference between government subsidised research, in universities or public institutions, and corporate research.
A private company usually won't engage in long term research (there are some exception, like Bell Labs, but they are few), because the stockholders, wanting their money back as fast as possible, aren't interested in the long-term performance of the company they hold. Which also means that some subjects will never be researched (such as the malaria, which only kills a few tens of millions each year...)
Also, the hierachised model of private companies tend not to be adapted to the needs of research : they'd rather focus on narrow, but close to be sellable, fields, rather that search for everything until they stumble on something good. An example of this kind of narrow vision by executives would be Xerox, and its PARC laboratories.
And, lastly, the freedom needed to be doing good research is hard to find in private companies : a researcher has its work overlooked every three months, whereas in France for a CNRS researches, it is only every other year...
Oh!
So thats why the public wealth is so great and the production of high-class medicines is so successful in China and Cuba where they have that system. Have always wondered.
Thanks for enlighten me!
I did try an onMouseOver hack to display the NYTimes URL on the statusbar, but the filters here are too smart even for me. Shame. I'll punish myself by looking at the goatse.cx guy for a minute. Thank you.
--
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
Actually there was an article on /. about this some time ago : http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/30/146227.shtml
seems like that answers your question.
-------------------------------------
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Now my question is, would the genetics company charge you for your crops which carries the modified ( patented ) genes?
what's with that stupid link about physics? geez, it distracts from your message. and you go on and on about orwellian this and that. whatever. hey i agree with your ideas but your presentation is a bit off. oh well, better cooky then nobody.
--how long till the operators are jailed for anime-induced pedophelia and
does anyone see an emerging theme here?
;-)
the idea of intellectual property is supposed to spur research and development by guaranteeing to the victors the spoils in any race towards more knowledge, more versatility, more music...
i'm talking about napster's recent merciless crushing, amazon's absurd one-click patent... and now this sort of staking out of genetic code like some sort of lilliputian lewis and clark expedition...
i think we'll have a crisis... 5 years, 10 years from now where there might be economic stagnation due to the stranglehold on certain freedoms the legions of intellectually property lawyers are wreaking on the entrepreneurial landscape, economic or scientific...
greed is good gordon gecko might say, but too much greed, the endgame of the capitalist landscape where monopolies rule, is bad... that's why there is reigns on monopolies and why events like breaking up ma bell is good for capitalism...
perhaps we should establish legal guidelines by which certain obscene intellectual property grabs are verboten... the genetic code off limits, for example, except and only except when the intellectual property rights would clearly spur on really good research and development... maybe, i don't know, i think we're only beginning to feel out this weird landscape of intellectual property law and its limits...
and something like that for digital music, and internet business models, and "gone with the wind" ripoffs
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
---
Large scale genetic modification of Plants and animals is dangerous and we have no way of knowing what problems an uncontrolled genetic goldrush will cause in nature. Genetic modifications of any kind should be striclty controlled by the state and not by corporoations. Genetic contamination and the escape of genetically modified plants and animals into wild populations is impossible to reverse.
---
It's also important to remember that reduction of genetic diversity is impossible to reverse. Populations don't survive because they have super-individuals; populations survive because SOME individuals are suited to survive a given crisis. If all individuals are very similar, they tend to stand or fall as one when a new and unexpected crisis hits.
If companies are producing genetically modified plant and animal populations which are diverse genetically, I have yet to hear about it. Genetically diverse populations are less profitable because it is difficult to control them with patents. It's far easier to develop a few dozen so-called "super" varieties which have short term advantages to farmers and/or consumers.
Think of a population of, say, corn, as a large base of software. Much of this software doesn't have any discernable purpose, so we (agribusiness) are ripping it out and replacing it with software which we think is more suited to our needs. The trouble is, we (all of us) aren't competent system architects. We've had to reverse engineer the system (since we never got any documentation with it) and we've managed to write a small but useful programs using its language. On the basis of this limited knowledge we call ourselves "genetic engineers" and propose to replace wholesale portions of the existing code with our new code, but at the system (population) level, we haven't really even managed to figure out the principles of a good implementation. Oh, by the way, we don't have a reasonable backup system in place, so it's going to be difficult for us to study the original system (in a comprehensive way) once we've made our modifications.
When we do get in trouble, who are we going to have to pay to get us out? Agribusiness.
Leave research to researchers, and business to businesspeople.