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.
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.
First define "unwanted" and then tell me how you determine them without them actually happening? Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
To repopulate all the crops after their doomsday crops pollinate every other farmers fields and causes famine.
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.
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.
This assertion flies in the face of common sense; pollen from this seed will float through the air and contaminate non-engineered fields and now those farmers will also have a percentage of their crop that produces sterile seed. This time, lawsuits will flow in the opposite direction: farmers who replant seed will sue Monsanto due to reduced germination rates and reduced yields in future years.
First define "unwanted" and then tell me how you determine them without them actually happening? Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.
As we all can remember from the terrible seedless Watermelon apocalypse that swept the land taking all vegetation with it, this is just too great of a risk to take! We must remember the dangers of producing plants without seeds!
Never forget!
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.
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.
BSA is in the legal assault industry.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I would go one step further. Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side effects, I am of the opinion that it should be mandatory, because it reduces the risk associated with genetically modified plants considerably.
When it comes to future evolution and survival of the fittest, genetically modified crops, particularly when those modifications involve resistance against weed killer, are likely to be preferentially naturally selected for. In the absence of modifications that prevent those genes from being passed on to future generations, those modified varieties will likely eventually become the dominant variety over all non-modified varieties. If in fifty or a hundred years, we discover that one of those genetic modifications causes harm, it will be an uphill battle to get our agriculture back to safe crops.
By contrast, if the genetically modified varieties contain terminator genes that make them sterile, the issue of contaminating future generations of plants ceases to be a problem. When farmers stop planting the dangerous variety, it stops growing. This, of course, assumes a completely effective terminator gene, which probably isn't likely, but even an imperfect terminator gene would help balance the odds somewhat.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Because of the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rule.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Engineering food to not reproduce just seems like a poor idea to me.
Too late. We have already been doing it for centuries. Visit any grocery store and you will see seedless grapes, seedless watermelons, navel oranges, seedless banana, etc. I doubt if many American or Europeans have ever seen a banana with seeds.
well the banana apocalypse is actually real.. for clones of particular banana.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.