farmers

> >>BTW all our cabinet are monsanto stock holders and now by
> >>law there farmers are no longer allowed tro save seed for
> >>next years crop. They now have to buy seeds guess who from
> >>Monsanto.
> >
> >Whose farmers?
> >
> >I'm aware of this issue, and it's quite sickening. But I
> >didn't think it had been successful anywhere.
>
> Every farmer in Iraq.
>

And in India, all over the 3rd world.
I'm not sure whether it's been entirely successful--
what happens is seeds blow in from a nearby Monsanto field, and then crops
spring up next year, and then Monsanto comes by and sues you for stealing
their patented seeds. then you have to sell your farm, you have no way
of making money, so you either move to the city and work for 2cents an
hour, or kill yourself.

There's been a high rate of farmer suicide in India of late.

It's "free" trade, baby . . . love it or. . .

hmmmmm . . . .

. . ..well, there's nowhere to
really go these days. . . .

by the way, on issues like this, I'm sure there's NO difference
whatsoever between Bush and Kerry.

> > >>BTW all our cabinet are monsanto stock holders and now by
> > >>law there farmers are no longer allowed tro save seed for
> > >>next years crop. They now have to buy seeds guess who from
> > >>Monsanto.
> > >
> > >Whose farmers?
> > >
> > >I'm aware of this issue, and it's quite sickening. But I
> > >didn't think it had been successful anywhere.
> >
> > Every farmer in Iraq.
>
> And in India,

I thought Indian farmers had won the right to save seed.

> all over the 3rd world.

Where is there legistlation forbidding farmers to save seed?

> I'm not sure whether it's been entirely successful--
> what happens is seeds blow in from a nearby Monsanto field, and
> then crops spring up next year, and then Monsanto comes by and
> sues you for stealing their patented seeds.

That happened in Mexico and here in the US, and I thought it
had been smacked down.

> then you have to sell your farm, you have no way
> of making money, so you either move to the city and work
> for 2cents an hour, or kill yourself.

Has this actually happened?

> It's "free" trade, baby . . . love it or. . .

That's not free trade.

-Carl

http://www.fpif.org/papers/0411grain.html

Robert

> http://www.fpif.org/papers/0411grain.html

According to this page, they've established something
new in Iraq, which is the right to patent seeds, and made
saving them illegal. I think plant patents are bad,
but note that we have them here in the States (and, I'm
guessing, in the UK also). But I see no support for this
statement...

"Farm-saved seed, agricultural experimentation, and the
unrestricted exchange of planting materials among farming
communities has long been the basis of Iraq's cultivation
practices. All this is rendered illegal by the new law."

I don't see anything about an obligation to use patented
varieties. A footnote says...

"Chapter Three, Article 15 B: Farmers shall be prohibited
from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety
mentioned..."

So what other varieties are mentioned?

-Carl

Hi Carl,

I'm not sure if I'm understanding it right but
what I thought it meant was that if the farmers
grow their traditional crops, and a neighbouring
farmer grows one of the GM crops and the GM
seed gets mixed in with their seeds then they
won't be able to sell or even grow
their own seeds any more.

But then that is just the same as the situation
in US isn't it? Maybe there is more to it
in Iraq. That link I gave seemed to suggest so
but looking at it again, it doesn't seem to be so very
specific about the details. Anyone know of a link that
explains it more?

I think myself that if these large companies can patent seeds
then - that seems fine as far as rewarding them for
their research efforst - but there should be some reciprocal
obligation on the holders of the patent to prevent their
patented gene getting into the seed stock of crops owned
by other farmers - though it seems the law
has decided it is valid in the US
anyway. Perhaps there is some technological
solution - require that they make
plants that produce sterile seed perhaps,
like seedless grapes (which I assume are sterile)
?

Or else say that the patent is void if it applies
to less than say 10 % of the seed?

I know that the law has been passed
already in the US but laws aren't
completely set in stone, they can
be changed in extraordinary situations,
- maybe this is one of them.

Here in the UK the debate is still
about whether to allow GM crops at all.

On that, my own thought again is that
perhaps it is just that the technology
is very much in its infancy still and
may be very userful later on but perhaps
we should go cautiously right now since
we may not know all the issues involved
in changing over to GM crops on a large
scale. So my sympathies right now are
with those who don't want to grow the
GM crops at all. But I'm not in favour
of an outright ban myself, just want to not
grow them yet, maybe not for a decade
or two unless it is a case of a very clear
need and very clear that it won't
cause any problems on the basis of everything
we know so far about it. I.e. maybe
try out one or two particularly needed
ideas with very strict controls and see how
they go.

Robert

> I'm not sure if I'm understanding it right but
> what I thought it meant was that if the farmers
> grow their traditional crops, and a neighbouring
> farmer grows one of the GM crops and the GM
> seed gets mixed in with their seeds then they
> won't be able to sell or even grow
> their own seeds any more.

Where does it say that? Or are you reading that
into it?

> But then that is just the same as the situation
> in US isn't it?

From what the article says, yes.

> Anyone know of a link that
> explains it more?

When I get a spare second (sometime in the year 2023),
I'll look for one.

> I think myself that if these large companies can patent seeds
> then - that seems fine as far as rewarding them for
> their research efforts - but there should be some reciprocal
> obligation on the holders of the patent to prevent their
> patented gene getting into the seed stock of crops owned
> by other farmers

Indeed, and sometimes this is done with a suicide switch,
which renders the 2nd generation sterile. It's probably
a good idea not to have GMO stuff interbreeding anyway.
But then you realize what you're saying -- suicide switches
for chrissake -- and you realize the idea of plant patents
was shite in the first place.

> like seedless grapes (which I assume are sterile)
> ?

Actually most grapes are sterile -- they must be grafted.
Ditto apples. Far from being a benign, down-homey,
harmonious pursuit, agriculture is actually an agressive
blind punch to mother nature.

> I know that the law has been passed
> already in the US but laws aren't
> completely set in stone, they can
> be changed in extraordinary situations,
> - maybe this is one of them.

Hopefully. And while they're at it, axe software
patents.

> Here in the UK the debate is still
> about whether to allow GM crops at all.

But do you have plant patents?

> On that, my own thought again is that
> perhaps it is just that the technology
> is very much in its infancy still and
> may be very userful later on but perhaps
> we should go cautiously right now since
> we may not know all the issues involved
> in changing over to GM crops on a large
> scale.

I agree. In fact, growing any monoculture
is probably not a great idea -- I'm a big
fan of local agriculture (and local
government).

-Carl

> > like seedless grapes (which I assume are sterile)
> > ?
>
> Actually most grapes are sterile -- they must be grafted.
> Ditto apples. Far from being a benign, down-homey,
> harmonious pursuit, agriculture is actually an agressive
> blind punch to mother nature.

Maybe you're thinking of the fact that the seedlessness
allele is recessive. Actually that may not be right, but
the idea, in other words, that ... hmm, how does that
work...? I know a guy who's a grape-grower (there's a
fancy name for that, I think) and he once explained how
seedlessness works, but I've forgotten it all.

-Carl