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?"

Comments

Not as bad as you'd think

[alewando]

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.

Re:Not as bad as you'd think

[ghoti]

I agree that there is a lot of corporate research now, much more than there used to be. But that is certainly not the end of academia.
Even for corporations, it is still of importance and value to be able to access information without having to do their own research for every little thing. Research is expensive, and it is becoming ever more so. And especially in genetic engineering, biology, etc the costs are tremendous.

But there is also another reason, which I find more important: If at some point in the future all research is done by corporations, that will be a great loss to all of us. If suddenly *all* the new findings are owned by somebody instead of being released to the public, that will make it impossible to do new stuff on your own (like doing Open Source programming, or setting up a small company to do something). And besides, no meaningful research will be possible any more, because any two companies that do similar stuff will continuously infringe on the other's intellectual property.

So imho, the opposite is going to happen: At some point, the corporations will find out that they are hampering their own work, and will start to either support academic work, or stop patenting everything. (yeah, maybe I am being a little optimistic, but that is really my opinion)

Re:Not as bad as you'd think

[Mike Connell]

[Scathing Sarcasm]
Oh yeah! Great counter argument! You have proved conclusively that a world with coporate research is a bad thing(tm).
[End Scathing Sarcasm]

I'm sorry if my post was too complicated for you, I'll try and explain it here. Note that although it was made as a joke, it highlighted a real point: Corporate research is funded to directly benefit the corporation. The bottom line, the shareholders. There is no escaping this. Only the largest and richest of the multinationals do a substantial amount to pure work (IBM, spawn of AT&T, etc).

University research is by and large done to further the "state of the art", ideally it is "relevant" to current commerical problems, but it is not driven by those problem. My post presented the very real problem that would exist if all "research" was conducted by corporations in a humorous light, but the real effect would be both harder and more chilling. I did not make the case that corporate research is a "bad thing", as I don't believe it is. However, if all research was corporate, it would indeed by very bad.

As for your scathing sarcasm, I suggest in future you save it for a post that you can understand (presumably one with less complexity than my two line offering).

Re:Not as bad as you'd think

[Mike Connell]

Anyone who believes that corporate research can or should replace university research deserves to live in a world where this has taken place.

I hope you enjoy your Genetically modified Mc Pokémon toy high cholesterol sweetener enriched CSS encrypted happy meal.

Re:Not as bad as you'd think

[eXtro]

In principle it is really bad. I'm not against corporate research, but I am against the bullying that will go with it. Look at the Monsanto corporation. First put things in a bit of perspective.

Imagine you're in your back yard, its a beautiful day. Your parents taught you that fences build good neighbours so your yard is fenced in. You are on friendly terms with your neighbours though. It so happens that one of your neighbours has an apple tree. It's in their yard but when the wind blows just right apples blow into your yard. You don't mind at all (though you wouldn't mind if the wind blew in another direction during the fall) because these are good apples, your favourite variety in fact. Usually you pick them up and eat them. At some time you miss an apple though. The apple and the seeds in it do what a half billion years of evolutionary programming has taught it: It grows and it flourishes. Now you've got an apple tree in your backyard, you didn't plant it, you didn't steal the seeds but still its there. Your neighbour doesn't care and you don't mind either. These apples are good eating.

Now for a more dystopian take consider the Monsanto corporation and their genetically modified canola seeds. A farmer in Canada grows 'natural' canola, he doesn't believe the glossies put out by Monsanto. Neighbouring farms don't feel the same way though, so they purchase Monsanto's genetically modified seeds. These seeds have been modified at the genetic level to resist a fairly powerful form of herbicide which it so happens Monsanto sells. The herbicide in question goes by the trade name of Roundup, and the seeds are referred to as Roundup Ready.

Similar to your story of the apple the winds blow and some of these genetically modified seeds find their way onto the farmers land. Just like the apple they obey a half billion years of evolution and germinate. From the farmers perspective these seeds and the plants they produce are a contaminant. This farmer purposely chooses to sell unmodified canola. This contaminant represents the intellectual property of Monsanto however and from Monsanto's financially fueled perspective they see this as the theft of their property. They take the farmer to court over it. Despite the fact that the farmer never physically stole the seeds (they invaded his property on the winds) nor did he want them he loses the law suit. He's charged with the standard Monsanto fee per acre, punitive damages and to rub a little salt in the wound the only way he can determine how much of this contaminant is in his crop is to use Roundup - which will kill his crop but leave the genetically modified crop surviving.

This same company, Monsanto, also sells other variants of seeds (Cotton I believe) who's plants have been linked to an increased incidence of cancer.

I'm not against research, nor am I against genetically modified crops. We've been modifying the genes of crops and animals for millenia already through more standard needs. What I am against is runaway corporations that can buy whatever legislation or legal outcome they'd like.

Here's a better idea: GPL for plants - SSN

[leonbrooks]

immediately and globally engage in mass copying, uploading, downloading and distributing of all copyrighted and patented materials.

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.

Re:Quite as bad as you'd think

[HiThere]

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.

It is a well known, very bad story

[ubi]

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...

Re:There Is Only One Way to Defeat IP Laws...

[lovebyte]

Ridiculous! All patented information is publically available. You can freely do research with it but you cannot sell a product based on some patented technology without an agreement/fee from the patent holder. This is about money, not freedom of information!

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!

Universities to 'wink-out'?? No way!

[molo]

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)

Re:Pop quiz: What is Genetic contamination?

[Fesh]

Thus the Onion article this week: "New Technological Breakthrough To Fix Problems of Old Breakthrough". The timing of that and this discussion is fantastic... *grin*

--Fesh

Seed Savers around the world...

[Technodummy]

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

Re:IP laws do play some good roles...

[ConsumedByTV]

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:

There Is Only One Way to Defeat IP Laws...

[MOBE2001]

...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!

Pop quiz: What is Genetic contamination?

[Savage-Rabbit]

What worries me about these GM crops is Genetic contamination. Today corporations are working on things like tobacco plants and Tomatoes with genes, in some cases even human genes added to produce medicine.

What worries me is:

1. What seems to be a complete lack control over what these corporations do. The US tobacco firms even genetically modified their tobacco to contain twice the normal amount of Nicotine and succeeded in marketing the resulting crop behind the back of the US Govt.
2. What will happen if these plants who in some cases will contain substances harmful to animals and humans begin to interbreed with wild plants and find their way into foodcrops. I see it as a problem if it was discovered that edable tomatoes had inadvertantly been crossed with say, insulin producing tomatoes.

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.

Quite as bad as you'd think

[linca]

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...