Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto's 'Terminator' Seeds Set To Make a Comeback
ananyo writes "Monsanto and other biotechnology firms could be looking to bring back 'terminator' seed technology. The seeds are genetically engineered so that crops grown from them produce sterile seed. They prompted such an outcry that, as Slashdot noted, Monsanto's chief executive pledged not to commercialize them. But a case in the U.S. Supreme Court could allow farmers to plant the progeny of GM seeds rather than buying new seeds from Monsanto, making the technology attractive to biotech companies again. Some environmentalists also see 'terminator' seeds as a way of avoiding GM crops contaminating organic/non-GM crops."
Reader 9gezegen adds that Monsanto is getting support, oddly, from parts of the software industry. From the NY Times: "BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might 'facilitate software piracy on a broad scale' because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file." The case was heard today; here is a transcript (PDF), and a clear explanation of what the case is about.
they'll be back
Monsanto’s reaction is that Bowman’s use of the commodity seeds plainly violates its patent. From its vantage point, Bowman might have been free to use the seeds he bought from Monsanto (on the theory that Monsanto’s patent rights for those seeds were exhausted by its sale of them), but Monsanto has never sold the seeds that Bowman bought and planted; Monsanto does not, for example, sell seeds to grain elevators. Because Monsanto has never sold those particular seeds, Bowman’s use of them to create new seeds infringes its patent as clearly as if Bowman had made a new light bulb copying Edison’s light-bulb patent.
So it has come to this: they are equivocating planting seeds with reverse engineering a light bulb.
For another thing, Monsanto’s technology agreement (signed by all farmers who purchase Roundup Ready seeds) includes provisions that prohibit Bowman’s activities. Among other things, those agreements prohibit any planting of progeny seed; the only permitted use of soybean seeds grown from Roundup Ready seeds is sale for food and the like. If the Court rules against Monsanto on the basic exhaustion question, it then must confront the controversial question (crucial to, among others, the software industry) of the enforceability of license agreements that govern the rights of users of IP-infused products. On that question, the United States (which firmly supports Monsanto on the central exhaustion question) argues that the conceded sale makes any subsequent licensing restrictions invalid as to those seeds and their progeny; not surprisingly, amici like the Business Software Alliance contest that idea.
Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it. Chase down the guy(s) that put your grain into that elevator and sue the living shit out of them. Then make sure all your current customers know that they're legally culpable for what a grain elevator does with your intellectual property. I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?
My work here is dung.
Why aren't all of those Monsanto people not in prison yet ?
Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I just had this image of a bunch of mini-Arnolds running around. Bad image, DO NOT WANT.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What laws have they, as individuals (vs. as a corporation) broken, specifically? Exclude laws that typically do not result in prison time.
If the answer is something other than "none," then you need to ask the relevant prosecutors, not Slashdot. If the answer is "none" then there's your answer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.
Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe? How long and how numerous are the human trials? I mean, I've seen the tobacco industry burn people on this exact same thing before by avoiding rigorous studies. Is this stuff treated just like the FDA treats any sort of medicine that we put into our bodies or does it just get rubber stamped through like a natural food? I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life. Also, I am rather afraid if we get to a point where symptoms develop but we can't pin down which genetically modified food is doing it because everything's genetically modified and even growing things organically doesn't mean anything because of cross pollination. If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears! For instance, increases of lead in our body looked safe cosmetically and look at all the studies coming out about that.
My work here is dung.
If this works:
Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.
Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
Wouldn't it be even better if they just didn't produce seeds at all?
Because if they produce seeds, even sterile ones, there's still the possibility of accidental contamination. While this might not pose any great threat to Monsanto, because of the seeds' strerility, the outcome could well be a potentially highly *reduced* crop count for places that were not ever intending to use Monsanto's seeds, spelling disaster on a global scale that could well result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
To repopulate all the crops after their doomsday crops pollinate every other farmers fields and causes famine.
It's a useful technology. It can be used to prevent volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn from infesting a following glyphosate-resistant soybean crop. It can also be used to prevent the spread of "engineered" genes to wild plants and crops in nearby fields, and it can eliminate many plant-patent lawsuits.
It will have no negative impact on most farmers because most of those who plant commercial seed understand that bin-run seed does not reproduce itself well, has poor germination, and often contains weeds. There are many vendors of traditional/open-pollinating/heritage seeds out there. Buy from them if you like that sort of thing. You will then be able to replant your own seed to your heart's content.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Ok, I admit this qualifies as a little bit paranoid. Why do I want to have, in the wild, the ability of a species to self-terminate: a purposeful genetic dead end. Our understanding of the genome is so complete and its interactions with other species that we have zero risk of this showing up elsewhere and rendering the entire ecosystem null and void? Call me paranoid, but I can't see how the benefits out weight the risks.
Monsanto is a big corporation and a well represented special interest.
Therefore, they will win.
...but I can't help but think that such an effect would be intentional. But they have the money, er, "protected speech," to push this through.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Many crops, like corn, commonly use hybrid varieties. These varieties exhibit 'hybrid vigor', which is a result of being heterozygous - they have one set of chromosomes from parent A and the other from parent B, so for all traits they have both an A and a B gene (AB). Replanting hybrid seeds would result in plants of three types (AA, AB, BB), unfortunately the AA and BB plants are usually very inbred and have low crop yields. You can do even better yields with a double-cross, which further decreases the effectiveness of replanting.
So conventional corn farmers haven't been saving seeds to replant since the the 1930's. 'Terminator' corn therefore wouldn't be much of a change.
Except for the problem that the pollen of these plants is not contained to the field that they are planted. That pollen will blow on the wind and can travel hundreds of miles on trucks, cars, birds and other animals and could then find its way onto other soybean plants which did not have the terminator gene. What happens then?
Is that pollen never produced on the plants with these seeds (but from my understanding of how these things work, especially when the food substance is the seed itself), you still need to pollinate the plants. I guess you could do it such that you genetically modify the plant to not produce pollen, and then also sell pollen that can be used to pollinate the genetically modified plants, but that is not what is being done here.
Now back to what happens when the pollen from the GM plant with the terminator gene pollinates a plant without that gene? Is it sterile? If so, what stops the owner of that plant from suing the company that made the other plant that now ruined his future livelihood by sterilizing his plants?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
that the terminator genes won't spread over to other crops as the roundup-ready goodies did. That would be real fun to watch...
Based on the links in the article, there's an easy way to make sure it doesn't apply to most software. The critical point is 'self-replicating'. Most software is not self-replicating.
Code or be coded.
So, Monsanto, who spends lots of money on research of GMO, wants to benefit from its research.
They can try too:
1. patent their product and take measures against anyone who uses it and doesn't pay.
-- Accidental use is far too easy. Plants don't label themselves
2. Use BRM (bio rights management) like terminator gene, or one that requires a chemical activation.
-- Like DRM you reduce the quality of the product to protect it. Also requires extra research time to do this.
So what would be an ideal solution to this problem, assuming that Monsanto can't afford to simply let farmers buy it once and propagate it as much as they like?
1. GMO is evil, and everything they do is bad. Their research should not be allowed to exist.
2. Create legislation where the government pays Monsanto for their work based on how much of their product is adopted. Then anyone can use the seeds.
3. Some other solution??
Is that Bill Gates owns a large amount of Montesanto shares. If they go up he becomes richer so of course he is promoting them through BSA.
Just saying it like it are.
I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:
BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.
Software isn't self replicating, a human you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate. That's completely different than seeds that naturally replicate themselves and that replication is why you plant them in the first place. Someone could take one copy of software and install it on multiple computers, but it's not the software that's doing the replicating, it's the human.
And even if they stretch and claim that installing a program multiple times is the same as a growing plant self-replicating the seed it grew from, then there's no reason a decision against Monsanto couldn't be made narrow enough to apply only to living plants.
"that allowed Bowman to use Roundup indiscriminately to kill weeds without any risk of harming the soybean crop. "
Oh great.. what about the risk to humans who eat this shit? Are people round-up ready?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p
I keep thinking the answer to this is not biotech but robotech...how hard can it be to create an army of roombas that kill weeds? Some hyperspectral cameras, pattern recognition and burners or pullers. It has got to be possible to engineer something workable and cost effective.
Anyway here is my delimma... if Monsanto wins they will be happy which will mean I will be sad.
If the farmers win they will be happy which means we all get to eat even more shit "indiscriminately" laced with roundup.
It seems I loose either way.
If you drop a CD into the soil, it won't do anything except break down over a few million years. If you drop a CD into a computer, it still won't do anything without user intervention. It might start an auto-run routine, but it won't fully install. (Unless it's a virus or trojan, but that's another kettle of fish.)
However, if you drop a seed...well...pretty much anywhere that doesn't immediately kill it, and it gets wet? It's going to self-replicate. It will complete it's life-cycle and produce more seeds, no human intervention required.
So from a software company, this case has already been decided?
Nature has prior art. The BDS's arguments are invalid.
[End Of Line]
I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:
BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.
Software isn't self replicating, you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate itself. That's completely different from seeds that naturally replicate themselves and which is why you plant them in the first place. You could take one copy of a program and install it on multiple computers, but the human is doing the replicating, not the software itself.
Arrggh. BDS = BSA/The Software Alliance
[End Of Line]
And those of every other rent-extracting legacy megacorp along with them?
So you could perhaps expect Microsoft to release a version of Word which is compiled for 1 computer, and if it finds itself running on a different computer, it promptly deletes itself.
Doesn't MS already do that? If you install Word on another computer without a valid license key, it will either refuse to start or start a limited number of times with a nag screen warning you that it's not registered and will quit working.
If you drop a CD into the soil, it won't do anything except break down over a few million years. If you drop a CD into a computer, it still won't do anything without user intervention. It might start an auto-run routine, but it won't fully install. (Unless it's a virus or trojan, but that's another kettle of fish.)
However, if you drop a seed...well...pretty much anywhere that doesn't immediately kill it, and it gets wet? It's going to self-replicate. It will complete it's life-cycle and produce more seeds, no human intervention required.
So from a software company, this case has already been decided?
Nature has prior art. The BSA's arguments are invalid.
[End Of Line]
BSA is in the legal assault industry.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Reader 9gezegen adds that Monsanto is getting support, oddly, from parts of the software industry.
It's not odd at all.
Monsanto's "innovation" is protected under US Patent law. Traditionally, patents were protected by suing the infriging party. However, the "terminator gene" is a technological self-help measure: Monsanto can enforce their patent on their own, without intervention of the law, by simply making it literally impossible to grow a second generation of crops by planting the first. It's genetic DRM.
That's the BSA's angle. They're arguing to protect DRM. For the purposes of protecting proprietary rights, patent (genetic behaviors) and copyright (copying software) are close enough that a precedent against Monsanto would make software pigopolists nervous about their own out-of-court self-help measures.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
While I understand that this removes the ability of a farmer to further breed the crop they've bought, I still prefer sterile GMOs to crosspollenation.
Many plants don't exclusively reproduce from seeds, they can also reproduce from cuttings.
Scientists in Canada confirmed Posilac (the growth hormone they give many dairy cows in the USA) causes cancer, which makes sense considering what cancer is. What would seeds that don't reproduce naturally do to us? (SEEDS! that grow plants that don't reproduce?!) Is anyone else concerned?
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
Patent, and Copyright, is basically a government-issued monopoly on making copies.
I'm going to do like Monsanto. I'll write a computer virus, copyright it, spread it, and sue the ass off of anyone who gets infected.
A patent on a life form makes no sense. Life forms, by their very nature, make copies of themselves. How can Monsanto claim an exclusive right to make Widget Seeds when the Widget seeds themselves are dedicated to making widget seeds?
What will happen when Monsanto makes a human gene that cures epilepsy? Will the law prohibit cured epileptics from having children?
Perhaps ONLY 'terminator' seeds should be patentable.
If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
This is exactly why GM seeds are illegal here in Europe (Except Spain who allow them for some reason): Fields near fields with GM crops get polluted. Sometimes people buy seeds they think are not GM but turn out to be GM and farmers are in those cases ordered to destroy their entire fields (and sometimes nearby fields) just to make sure we keep GM-genes away. Look to Europe, we have a very simple solution to this mess: Just outlaw GM and you're done.
I suspect that the US will be forced to import natural seeds from Europe if they want/need them in the near future, everything in North-America will be infected with GM seeds pretty soon if you irresponsible people in the USA keep this up.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Nature finds a way.
There are *plenty* of things wrong with the seeds evolution has provided - that is why we've been modifying them (through *human* selection) since well back into prehistoric times.
I have no issue with trying to make plants "better" - there are loads of things we could improve in just about any plant. I don't even have any issue with trying to make plants better by fiddling with their genes in a lab and seeing what comes out, as opposed to the standard way: fiddling with their offspring and seeing what comes out (which really amounts to much the same thing, just takes a lot longer and is a lot harder to control). I only have issue with any plants getting out that threaten to destroy their *parent* subspecies. After all, *diversity* is key to long-term survival, evolution teaches that, too. If you want a plant that's better, but can't reproduce? Fine. That's no different from a mule. Just as long as you don't try to force every donkey and horse to only have mulish offspring, none of their own species, then kill all the donkeys and horses, so you can reign supreme in the mule-cloning business, bwahaha! Cause that's just evil.
(Yes, I am totally willing to agree, Monsanto is rather evil. Just not for GMO *generally*, only for their own behaviors specifically.)
There is no evidence that Monsanto would resort to terminator genes when other techniques like careful hybridization would get the same results.
Not to mention it's pretty unlikely the Supreme Court is going to rule against Monsanto in the first place.
Really the article is pretty much a ridiculously transparent troll.
Is it sterile? If so, what stops the owner of that plant from suing the company that made the other plant that now ruined his future livelihood by sterilizing his plants?
This is probably what would happen here in the EU, but we avoid that altogether by having laws again GMO seeds.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Guys, you are totally missing the big picture. If Monsanto sell only their sterile seeds, that also means there is no way for their crap to cross polinate and takeover the original non modified seeds. That is BRAZILIUN times safer for everyone... no more accidental contamination.
Now Monsanto deserve to die, but for once... their greed is good... from an ecological standpoint...
Terminator genes escape and propagate throughout the plant world
Except for the problem that the pollen of these plants is not contained to the field that they are planted. That pollen will blow on the wind and can travel hundreds of miles on trucks, cars, birds and other animals and could then find its way onto other soybean plants which did not have the terminator gene. What happens then?
Like many other hybrid seeds, the terminator seed extinguishes its line in a single season. Its likelihood of getting into the wild is vastly reduced. The risk would be to the crops along the boundaries of immediate neighboring farmer.
Remember that the terminator seed probably has to produce pollen that works enough to allow the plant to produce seed.
Its just that the seed produced won't germinate (or something). So the neighbor's crop might grow just fine even when cross fertilized, but some portion of his seed may not work the following year. The rest would grow fine.
Perhaps it could be contrived by engineering the "terminator"crop to produce seed later than normal, when the other crops would have already produced their pollen, and set seed that would be virile.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You keep banging that drum, but your own scientists tell you its crazy talk.
To date, nobody has found a single health risk in GM food or GM Grain.
I suspect EU will hit a famine one of these days and will be eating GM food or nothing at all.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Farmer A = Farmer B. Bowman signed the agreements.
yes it does contaminate other crops thats the whole problem here. pollen from roundup ready terminator crops spreads to neighbors normal crops offspring inharite terminator gene terminator gene is recessive not killing this generation but out competes natural plant due to the built in genetic alteration so most third generation plants have two copies of the terminator gene render sterile. Simple mendelian genetics you should have learned in 8th grade science class.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Monsanto isn't saying they will release terminator seeds, some guy who specializes in IP says they might want to. Where does it say anywhere that they are 'set to make a comeback'?
Most of you have completely missed the point with all your clever tricks to get around Monsanto's arguably-legal (if unethical and immoral) IP rights and to prevent cross contamination and what-have-you.
If you think this looks ugly, c'mon geeks, project this out 50 years. We have hyperbole in this discussion already about "patenting" human offspring. Do you all really think that exact case won't make it to the USSC a few decades from now, as long as we allow slime like Monsanto to claim ownership of genetic material?
Write your politician. March on Washington. Burn the fuckers to the ground (metaphorically, of course - Though I certainly won't cry if someone does). Whatever it takes. This hasn't even started to get ugly yet, and we have the entire future of US agriculture hanging by a thread in this one petty little contract dispute.
Or maybe it's just not a very good business model, and we don't need to extend the jurisdiction of patents to prop up such a business?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The US are a great country. It's the dipshits that run it that are pathetic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gives me an interesting idea. Can't we somehow sic the bible thumpers on them for defying God or some shit like that? I mean, for a change they could do some good.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Monsanto will have no more claims against farmers who want to save and replant seeds as their product by definition is not capable of doing that. Organic farmers and wild plants are protected from contamination. And anyone who wants to plant commercial seeds and play by the rules doesn't lose anything.
I say mandate that bioengineered plants be made sterile.
Well one thing wrong is that humans have been eating non-engineered plants for thousands of years with no ill effects, and where there have been ill effects either plants or sensitive humans involved have been purged from gene pool.
The same can not be said for a newly engineered plant enhanced with genes from harmful bacteria to kill insects that are trying to munch them.
Yes, and actually it's one of the better arguments in favor of GM foods in general: Europe banned them, but in the US we've been eating them for many years. No health problems have been found in the US that's attributable to this. As Stewart Brand comments that's a massive experiment conducted on large populations. What more do people need before they'll calm down about this?
(In a way, it's a shame that California voters shot down that bill calling for mandatory labeling of GM foods: it might've made people suddenly realize how much of it they were eating without any problems... And once it sunk in that GM foods were better environmentally, you might find people arguing that if you can't afford Organic you should buy GM.)
Nahh, unless Monsanto can create genetically modified humans (with patented genes) and then sue you for having a child with such a person, our world is not Orwellian enough. Monsanto, you 've got to try harder. The fact you can own all the seeds is not good enough. Go and bribe some senators a bit more so that they abolish that pesky law about not creating genetically modified humans. Anyone thinks this terminator seed will become a reality again? Ever since Monsanto discovered they could own all the seeds by letting their genetically modified products mix with natural ones *in the wild* and then claim ownership of said genetically modified ones, they have no reason to go back.
of said genetically modified ones = of said "natural" ones
GP stated that "Bowman didn't sign it," not that "Bowman didn't sign it for his second plantings." The first suggests to the reader that he never agreed to the planting restrictions or was somehow innocently unaware of what he was doing. The second suggests that he was perfectly aware that what he was doing would violate at least the patents, if not the contract itself (there's no reason for the contract to be specific to that planting. as opposed to a period of time up until the patents expire).
It's funny how including what Bowman actually did gets the post moderated as a Troll, but accusing a company of suing 'innocent' farmers who purchase seeds in a very unusual way is +5 informative. Bias much?
Environmentally, organic vs GM shouldn't matter much. You're talking more or less the potential usage of pesticides.
Where crops have an impact environmentally is whether or not they are locally grown which is independent of organic vs GM.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
No suprise Monsanto is having relations with BSA, look who the members are...
http://www.bsa.org/country/bsa%20and%20members/our%20members.aspx
http://naturalsociety.com/bill-gates-foundation-buys-500000-shares-of-monsanto/
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_f__willi_080123__22doomsday_seed_vault.htm
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Seriously, if these seeds are released commercially. It'll be time that we'll need all those AR15s...and several tanks of gasoline.
It has already been shown that GMO crops interbreed with wild/natural crops.
Having a terminator corn that winds up interbreeding could wipe out ALL corn.
This is such a preposterous and dangerous action. That the mere taking of it is justification for The People to literally wage war on a physical level with Mosanto.
Sorry, potentially risking the starvation of humanity is BAD SCIENCE. And threatening the lives of billions is justification for the use of physical force.
Reducing the use of pesticides is certainly a good thing, but actually there's supposed to be another advantage of some GM crops in reducing the need to till the land, which is apparently a large source of greenhouse gas emissions.
But sure, local food sources will burn less energy in transporting the stuff, which is also to the good.
Someone needs to sterilize Monsanto!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!