Comments on: How Farmers Feel About Patented Seed Saving

By: Chidi

Chidi — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:22:02 +0000

Critics cannot pull down agricultural biotechnology. Monsanto is the key to sustainable agriculture.

By: Ewan Ross

Ewan Ross — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:41:39 +0000

Terry – only if the farmer is aware of the contamination and knowingly saves the monsanto seeds. (for instance by destroying his heirloom crop with roundup, harvesting the seeds from the surviving plants (which anyone with any knowledge of agriculture would have to know contained the RR trait), and then using this seed specifically to plant the next years crop)

By: Terry Bussoletti

Terry Bussoletti — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:57:15 +0000

What about the issue of cross contamination. One farmer plants patented monsanto seed, another farms organically with heirloom seed, and his crop is contaminated by the monsanto seed. Is it true that monsanto will sue the non monsanto farmer for saving seeds and planting them the next year, even though he never signed any agreement or purchased any monsanto seed?

By: John Q

John Q — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:38:01 +0000

Just so we’re all clear, patented seed and seed saving are NOT exclusively GM concerns. MOST of the commercial seed these days is hybrid seed, and will not “breed true” in the second generation anyway. By buying hybrid seed, the farmers almost require themselves to buy new seed the next year, or they risk uneven performance from their saved seed. Using non-hybrid seed risks (likely assures) lower performance, but allows seed saving, assuming an agreement hasn’t been signed to the contrary.

By: Jody

Jody — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:59:42 +0000

It comes down to a contractual agreement. If a farmer signs a document that he/she will not save seeds, and they break that agreement, they are subject to penalty.

The majority of farmers are willing to pay the prices for seed every year because it is a superior product that maximizes yields.

I agree also that it is not fair to expect a monsanto perspective from a farmer. They are businessmen. They rightly display a businessman’s perspective.

By: Ewan Ross

Ewan Ross — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:41:59 +0000

Ellen – regarding the ethics of the model – it would seem to me that this would be a good starting point for a discussion around the matter – which ethical questions concern you (I appreciate that you separate the ethical questions regarding the use of transgenics per-se and the ethical concerns around the patenting/seed saving issue as the two need not neccesarily go hand in hand)

By: Ellen

Ellen — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:58:42 +0000

We’re becoming a nation of borrowers and renters and in turn giving up rights and power.

There may be issues of ethics regarding the use of these seeds, but the model itself raises ethical questions that are answered nicely in marketing materials, but have not been debated in the interest of the public.

By: John Q

John Q — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:42:02 +0000

There is also a good discussion of this topic at
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/06/19/seed-patent-history/

By: John Q

John Q — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:38:19 +0000

ssolo112, much as I hate to justify your comment by responding to it:

By the same logic, “Food, Inc.” doesn’t own photons or electrons, so we should be able to make all the copies of their movie we want without paying them for it.

On the other hand, without patent protection for technology, we wouldn’t have microwave ovens, or TV’s, or cell phones, or the computer and Internet you used to submit your comment.

So, you are correct (in my unofficial, non-binding estimation), Monsanto does not own seeds, but it owns the technology the seeds contain. If you can find some way to remove Monsanto’s technology from the seeds, you might make a lot of money!

By: ssolo112

ssolo112 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:46:50 +0000

Down with Monsanto you people are monsters. You don’t own seeds!!!