Slashdot Mirror


Plant Breeders Release 'Open Source Seeds'

mr crypto (229724) writes "A group of scientists and food activists are launching a campaign to change the rules that govern seeds. They're releasing 29 new varieties of crops under a new 'open source pledge' that's intended to safeguard the ability of farmers, gardeners and plant breeders to share those seeds freely."

27 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Shame this happened by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a sorry state of affairs that this has had to be done. I wonder if I can open source my DNA before someone else patents it.

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:Shame this happened by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now I know for sure. The world has gone mad. Should I tell my neighbours that the seeds of my vegetable garden are subject to the General Plant Licence?

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:Shame this happened by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't *have* to be done. There's a gigantic number of seeds which are commercially available already, there's many government and private organizations safeguarding these seeds, and the amount of patented seeds is comparatively insignificant. In addition, modern farming operations don't save seeds for future crops.

      In fact, the basic idea behind Monsanto controlling the seed supply has been standard industry practice for 50+ years. Most vegetables commercially grown are F1 hybrids. In 1960, 99% of corn grown was an F1 hybrid. If you buy a Better Boy Tomato, an F1 hybrid also popular for home gardening, there will be little variation between the plants grown. However, the seed from these plants will be unusable. Peas and beans pollinate their own flowers, so for these plants such a strategy isn't practical. However, that doesn't mean the death of the species - even if most commercially grown tomatoes are F1 hybrids where the seeds are unusable, of course there's still a million variety of tomatoes which may be planted from seed (with a little care) and are easily available.

      This is a symbolic marketing/propaganda move against Monsanto. Monsanto developed a soybean that is invulnerable to the safe, cheap, and environmentally benign herbicide Round-Up. They sell seeds with a contract stipulation that the seeds not be re-sown (again, normal farming practice is to buy all seed anyway), and won a lawsuit against a farmer who intentionally grow a Monsanto crop without paying Monsanto- he would buy the Monsanto crop for the first planting of the year, and use saved seed for the second planting of the year.

      This group imagines that it's hard to find seeds that aren't patented, or at least that it will be in the future, to make some point that you shouldn't be allowed to patent seeds because think of how horrible it would be if you needed to deal with Monsanto to plant a carrot. However, if that future does come to pass, this wouldn't really help - you'd need something with the infrastructure to supply huge amounts of seeds, not just supply fun little seed packets to home gardeners.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    3. Re:Shame this happened by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 2

      You are so right.

      How on earth can we feel proud at this initiative when we are overwhelmed with rage at the sheer insanity injustice of the context in which this initiative has to exist at all. And the fact that this bullshit is being exported through corrupt politicians to 3rd world countries where people starve every day.

      Fuck Monsanto and all their ilk and damn them to hell.

      etc.

    4. Re:Shame this happened by wrook · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just to clarify. The lawsuit that I'm aware of entailed a farmer using roundup on his field and discovering that some things didn't die. These were volunteers from a neighbouring farmer's field that blew into his. He collected that seed and grew a subsequent crop of roundup resistant plants. While the farmer was not obliged under contract not to replant these seeds, the act of planting was considered patent infringement.

      Personally I'm not a fan of the laws that allow this to happen, but probably this was a good legal judgement. It is important to get the fact right, though. I would have no problem with a seed company selling seed under a contract. I have a fairly big problem with the concept that planting a seed is patent infringement. But that's what the law allows right now.

    5. Re:Shame this happened by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, seems to be about that way. I've got some blue tomato seed that has no patents on it (Dancing With Smurfs, actual name), and no one makes a fuss about it. I don't see what their point is here. I was about to mod you up but since I actually work with plant breeding think I'll give my own 2 cents instead.

      The claim in TFA about being worried about no more germplasm is totally ridiculous. With my blue tomatoes I've got a bunch of heirloom varieties of things (Blue Jade sweet corn, Dragon Tongue bean, Red Kuri squash, Giant Prague celeriac, Star of David okra, and lots more) that can in no way be patented. They are there, and as long as people keep propagating them they'll always be there, free to use. Furthermore, the patents on plants do expire; Honeycrisp apples used to be pateneted, but they're not anymore (by the way, that patent brought in tons of money to the program that developed it, allowing them to develop some other pretty amazing varieties). And Monsanto (because everyone brings up Monsanto) is not an exception here; their first Roundup Ready soybean goes off patent in a few months. That means this very year, farmers can, if they choose, save that variety and plant it for the 2015 crop. I really can't see the problem people have with these sorts of patents, isn't that how things are supposed to work? Develop, patent, recoup losses, then the invention falls to the public domain, and the profit is reinvested for new innovations (ex. SnowSweet apples and DroughtGard corn). Don't like patented plants? Fine, don't grow them, problem solved. And with the 'farmers sued for cross pollination' thing being a myth (no, accidental cross pollination is not the same as intentional selection any more than making a home movie is the same as recording a film in a theater and selling it), so I really don't get the Monsanto hate people are inevitably going to flame up with this. The vast majority of the reasons they are demonized for are nothing but lies, and yet somehow, Monsanto is still the bad guy here, not the weasels lying and being emotionally manipulative to make an extremely important technology look evil via guilt by proxy.

      Additionally, I am envious of these guys if they have a program that has enough money to release things for free, although reading TFA it seems like they will be picking and choosing which is released for free and which is patented, indicating this is just a way to get some good publicity out of things that would otherwise be discarded. I work with a breeding project and you can bet whatever comes out of it will be patented, not because I'm out to get rich (we'd all go corporate if money was the prime concern) but because there is not enough funding for public agriculture research. You think we want to? We don't, but breeding programs need funding. That's a fact of life. Times are hard for funding, and sometimes it seems the only time the public stops long enough to pay attention is to demonize us for saying GMOs don't cause cancer, or autism, or whatever the hell the denialists and conspiracy theorists are prattling on about today. Maybe if everyone called up their local congresscritters and other politicians and demanded more funding for their land grant universities and public agriculture research that wouldn't be the case. Ever been to a corporate lab? Well I have, and it'd be great to have the equipment they can afford. But hey, go on attacking Monsanto and other private breeders for trying to support themselves (anyone think pluots just magically appeared? Someone spend a hell of a lot of time and effort developing those, nice to hear from the anti-plant patent crowd that they deserve to get screwed over for it), I'm sure hurting them will make all the actual problems magically disappear.

      All that aside, its damned cool that they're working with quinoa bree

    6. Re:Shame this happened by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope that is not the case. What happened is the farmer found some plants that were resistanct to Round-up and had knowledge that the other farmers around him were using the round-up resistant seed.
      He then went and did some additional testing to verify the plants. He then went out and collect the seed from the resistant and did additional seed cleaning to remove plant seed that were not resistant. Once he had a high percent of seed he was sure were round-up resistant he proceed to use that and also to sell it.
      If they had just been seeds he harvested and had not tried to make special use of the round-up resistant nature he would of been ok. That he made special effort to use the round-up resistance nature of the seed he got into trouble.

    7. Re:Shame this happened by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, fuck them for blocking important technological advances like insect resistant crops and lifesaving Golden Rice! And fuck them for suing farmers for unknowingly having their crops cross pollinated, even though that never actually happened. Oh wait...what are we angry about again? You know, before you start damning folks to hell (it wouldn't be the first time I've gotten that one), maybe you should check to see that you're not being lied to and emotionally manipulated by people out to advance their own social, political, and economic agendas.

      And the fact that this bullshit is being exported through corrupt politicians to 3rd world countries where people starve every day.

      Well, I agree with that, but I think we're talking about very different bullshits. I'm talking about the fact that, if the field of plant improvement had not been set back by 15 years by activists using Monsanto as a generic boogeyman, we'd be awash in all sorts of beneficial crop traits. Instead, publicly funded GE crops stopped with the extremely successful Rainbow papaya. Bangladesh is just now getting Bt eggplant, and its about time (and just wait, when it inevitability makes it to India, there's going to be a shitstorm among idiot activists who've never stepped food in either a farm or a lab). Golden Rice still has yet to be released. Something is very wrong here, and this time it isn't the big corporation.

    8. Re:Shame this happened by johanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "This is a symbolic marketing/propaganda move against Monsanto"

      Good. Death to Monsanto.

    9. Re:Shame this happened by rgbatduke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The interesting question will be GPL viral. So far, Monsanto et. al. have invoked a viral clause to protect the genes of their products that are literally carried by the wind to non-purchaser's fields who happen to grow their own seed crop. Imagine the impact of having genes carried the other way! Sorry Monsanto, the hybrid crop is now GPL, unless you take steps to prevent e.g. corn pollen from blowing in the wind.

      Never work, of course, but it is a nice fantasy.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    10. Re:Shame this happened by plover · · Score: 2

      A lot of the animosity towards Monsanto comes from their overall behavior. Creating the terminator gene is first to mind. Next are the numerous allegations about misconduct: complaints that they do inadequate studies, they hire certain researchers expecting certain study outcomes, that they tamper with study results, and that they have bribed government officials. However, most of those reports come from the wacko anti-GMO crowd (who are really a bunch of anti-anything idiots), so it's hard to know if there's a shred of truth to any of the complaints.

      The biggest gripe I have is their drive to produce pest- and herbicide-resistant crops. Every one of these is putting other farmers' crops at risk, because they're creating pesticide-resistant super-bugs and herbicide-resistant super-weeds. Those bugs and weeds don't limit themselves to Monsanto-seeded fields, they're natural organisms that spread, and those bugs are now attacking non-Monsanto crops, and the weeds are infesting non-Monsanto fields. Monsanto knew this was going to happen from the start of the program, they estimated it would take about 20 years for it to happen (it actually took less than 10 for the corn rootworm to evolve Bt resistance), yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

      Had they focused their modifications only on creating high yield and high nutrition crops, instead of trying to fight the resistance battle, their overall agricultural activities would have been a lot more responsible.

      --
      John
    11. Re:Shame this happened by interkin3tic · · Score: 3

      I don't see how that changes things. He was collecting discarded trash from his neighbors, so he didn't enter into agreements there. Monsantos patents on glyphosphate are expired, so using round-up to enrich the trash doesn't change anything. Sneaky, maybe, but seeds blowing off your property are no longer yours.

      I could see how selling the seed would get him into trouble with patents, but that's only reasonable if you accept that patents on living things are reasonable.

    12. Re:Shame this happened by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Typical Slashdot. Anyone gets downmodded into oblivion for not toeing the "MONSANTO IS SATAN" line.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    13. Re:Shame this happened by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      What really should have happened is that all his Monsanto-using neighbors should have gotten in trouble for allowing their seeds to escape. Since they were the ones who were parties to the agreement with Monsanto, they were the ones who broke that agreement.

      Of course, Monsanto suing its own customers would be bad for business, so it went after the innocent third-party instead...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Shame this happened by tomhath · · Score: 2

      It wasn't clear that the seeds escaped. As I recall he had purchased roundup ready seeds in previous years, then suddenly "discovered" that the seed he saved carried the gene. That's how all the cases I've seen have turned out (initial claim that it was wind blown from a neighbor, then admission of guilt), although this might be referring to a special case.

  2. Just by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just a sec, gotta recompile the kernel.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  3. Re:Uh oh by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Informative

    I really don't think Monsanto would care to be honest. Or more precisely, I'm not sure why they would care.

    By that I mean, I'm trying to figure out what is special about the seed these guys are "open sourcing" and I'm really not sure what sets it apart. Good luck to them I guess, but I just don't see what would make somebody want their seed instead of any other seeds they can obtain. This strikes me as being like forking FreeBSD under the GPL license, not adding anything to it at all, and then asking the FreeBSD community to switch.

    It's already known however that several farmers (at least 144 of them so far have been proven to) deliberately try to grow Monsanto seed without paying Monsanto for them.

    Anyways, SCOTUS recently stated that Monsanto can't sue in cases of accidental planting of their patented seeds (Monsanto hasn't ever filed such a lawsuit against somebody who accidentally planted them, let alone won one; rather an organic group was trying to ask SCOTUS to forbid all Monsanto patent lawsuits; a request that SCOTUS denied saying that Monsanto's existing stance was both sufficient and binding.)

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  4. The wrong license by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The license used is:

    "It basically says these seeds are free to use in any way you want. They can't be legally protected. Enjoy them."

    This is a GPL type license. There is nothing to stop Monsanto from going to a farmer who is using these seeds and saying:

    Pollen from one of our products blew in last year and so these seeds now contain some of our genes, so you now owe us for using these seeds and can't give it away to anyone.

    The only way to deal with Monsanto is to beat them at their own game. One way would be to develop a seed with some novel genes (call them NoGe) and copyright these under something like the GPL. Then grow these seeds upwind of a Monsanto development facility; when, later, Monsanto then sue someone for illegal use of their seeds a NoGe 'owner' could testify that the Monsanto seeds must be allowed free to everyone use due to the 'viral nature' of the GPL. That legal punch up would be interesting to watch!

  5. Missing a rather large point by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing that's sort of buried in the article is this movement is also anti-hybrid, which is not all that surprising. But hybrids offer a definite, measurable benefit to the farmer - not only are they more uniform (important for commercial harvesting), they are invariably more vigorous than open pollinated varieties. Greater vigor per plant means greater profit per plant.

    As a gardener I understand and applaud attempts to develop and improve open pollinated varieties of vegetables and fruits. It's fun to save your own seeds, and OPs have more diverse genes - so they are important to the continued existence of plant species. But it's going to be an uphill battle trying to convince farmers to give up hybrids, if that's really the movement's goal. And I don't think it's really what they should be focussing on. But plant purists can be every bit as inflexible as the most ardent GPL zealot, so I expect philosophy will win out over practicality.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Missing a rather large point by wrook · · Score: 2

      I can see this working very similarly to the free software movement. As you correctly point out, there are already plenty of gardeners who are passionate about seed sharing. The internet allowed free software to be an efficient method of software development and distribution. 30 years on, it has even reached mainstream development. Just look at the percentage of teams using free software development tools (especially in web development).

      In the past, it was difficult for an individual (dare I say hobbyist) to develop a useful new variety of plant. You need a lot of time, effort and especially land. But what if you can coordinate with other hobbyists over the internet? What if you all agreed that you would share seed? What if you all agreed that nobody could restrict the future use of these seeds. Now you have many hands, and many small plots of land, and many different growing environments, pollen, etc. Suddenly it scales.

      What is needed is coordination and trust. The GPL created a level playing field that allowed people to trust each other when collaborating in software development. I'm not sure, but having a similar agreement for seed development does not sound like a bad idea to me.

  6. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone's gotta start the fire.

    These seeds might be irrelevant, just like the GNU project was fairly irrelevant to the world the year it started. And even today, the mainstream media think of Linux rather than the collection of FSF software when they talk of the success of open source. But it all started with Stallman identifying a principle and working toward it.

  7. Mnsanto - hate unjustified? by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 5, Informative

    The hate for Monsanto also comes from the irresponsibility. They planted Roundup-resistant plants all over while saying "the resistance will never spread to other plants" without actually bothering to check whether that was the case, as if they had never heard of plasmids. Roundup-resistant weeds with the Monsanto gene in them were found IN THE NEXT FIELD BELONGING TO A DIFFERENT LANDOWNER four months after the first crops were planted. Since then, Monsanto have lied repeatedly about the spread of resistance, and what the likely consequences might be - and denied having any responsibility for the consequences.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
    1. Re:Mnsanto - hate unjustified? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      How the hell did that get modded informative, that's blatantly false.

      They planted Roundup-resistant plants

      'They' here being farmers, do you have any idea how supply chains work?

      all over while saying "the resistance will never spread to other plants" without actually bothering to check whether that was the case, as if they had never heard of plasmids.

      Yes, your degree from Google University means you know more than all the scientists at Monsanto. And what the hell do plasmids have to do with anything?

      Roundup-resistant weeds with the Monsanto gene in them were found IN THE NEXT FIELD BELONGING TO A DIFFERENT LANDOWNER four months after the first crops were planted

      Man, if horizontal gene transfer happened that easily we'd be living in a very different world, however, that didn't happen. This is evolution 101 here; apply a strong selective pressure over a large area upon a fast reproducing species and you produce genetic shifts. If you knew anything about agriculture (you clearly don't) you would know that the first examples of herbicide resistant weeds emerged in the 70's, decades before GMOs. This is a problem systematic of agriculture, not one of GMOs. As for the Roundup resistant weeds, their mode of resistance is well understood, with mutations such as amplification of the EPSP synthase enzyme, or blocking of glyphosate translocation, or modification of the glyphosate binding site responsible, but never once has there been a single instance of the weeds uptaking the crop's genes. I'll eat my hat if you can find me a single example of the C4 EPSPS gene (the gene used in RR crops) being integrated into a weed's genome. Come on, prove me wrong, I'd love to hear about it. If Monsanto is so evil, and the hate so justified, the evidence of what you say should be abundant, and it shouldn't be hard to shut me up.

      Since then, Monsanto have lied repeatedly about the spread of resistance

      And here's Monsanto talking about it., Two seconds on Google is all it would have taken to find that. That news is all over the ag world, no one is covering it up, its been a topic of discussion for a long time, and if you paid attention to ag news or watched ag TV programs like on RDF-TV then you'd know that.

      I really wish people who knew nothing about agriculture would stop going around saying what's what when they wouldn't know guanine from glufosinate.

  8. Seed Savers Exchange? by careysub · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except for the EULA printed on their packets this is very similar to what the very well established Seed Savers Exchange has been doing for decades.

    For reference the actual operative text of the EULA is:

    "By opening this packet, you pledge that you will not restrict others’ use of these seeds and their derivatives by patents, licenses, or any other means. You pledge that if you transfer these seeds or their derivatives you will acknowledge the source of these seeds and accompany your transfer with this pledge."

    It is the actual work of the seed savers group - saving, reproducing, distributing seed - that is preserving these varieties for future generations. Imposing this transfer clause seems to make these OSSI varieties less likely to be redistributed, so it may actually have a negative effect on their propagation. I don't see that having someone taking an heirloom variety and developing a patented variety from it is impeding seed saving and exchanging.

    Heirloom varieties are under threat - the number of them in circulation is dropping, and strains are being lost since they do need to be periodically "grown out" to preserve the seed stock. But it is not being caused by heirloom varieties being patented - it is because commercially produced seed is being used by most gardeners for very real conveniences they provide.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  9. Re:Monsanto - hate paid for. by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    According to this recent talk by Joel Salatin, cotton farmers in the south nowadays have to pay $70/acre to have people manually chop down the Roundup-resistant weeds before they harvest. Apparently they grow so big that they tear up the combine, and since Roundup won't kill 'em, they have to be hacked out with a machete.

    As Salatin puts it, "This is a crack in the paradigm." The whole system of industrial scale, petro-chemical dependent, mono-species farming is about to fall apart.

    If you've always wanted to start a backyard garden (or even if you haven't) now might be a good time to start.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  10. Uhm... Heirloom seeds? by whistlingtony · · Score: 2
    We already have Heirloom seeds. We already have a lot of people dedicated to preserving heirloom seeds. I get what they're trying to do, but naturally occuring expressions shouldn't be patentable anyway. If they're tweaking the seeds and THEN open sourcing them, well, good on them. But they're just breeding them... I'm annoyed this needs to be done, but glad they're doing it.

    Frankly, seeds should be harvested from a region, and kept in a region. Let evolution do the work of keeping them healthy in a particular environment.

  11. Re:Open source shovels and hoes by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

    Hey, your snark totally helps us feed the world. Thanks.

    I'm guessing you don't know squat about this. Yes, those seeds are developed to oh say, be resistant to Roundup herbacide. Funnily enough after a few generations of insects, so are the insects, and now the farmers are stuck with expensive patented seeds AND a giant herbacide bill, AND it doesn't work anyway because the insects evolved.

    It's a real problem. Liberals DO care about it, because we're fucking smarter than you are, and we care more about the world and each other. :D

    P.S. Farmers can be liberals too. These days, Liberal is just a word for someone who gives a shit and wants to fix it.