They’re not sterile, but they will sue you if they find you’ve been growing seeds from last year’s crops.
Or if your neighbours crops have germinated in your lands
Why invent technology to control people when you can just use the law?
No they won’t.
They will sue you if you take your neighbors pesticide resistant seeds, sow them, douse them in pesticide so only the resistant ones survive, and sow your entire field with them.
Yes, they will.
You’re taking the approach of an independent farmer that didn’t sign a contract with Monsanto. What you said mostly aligns with that scenario.
For the farmer that did sign a contract with Monsanto, that is a standard and required clause, and they do enforce it.
Classic piracy. The original product is still there; you’re just making a copy.
I mean, I totally agree with all forms of breaking IP law on ethical grounds. But I also recognise that it’s still breaking the law right now.
Why “but”? Why are those two statements viewed as contradicting each other in tone?
Isn’t classic piracy boarding ships and taking all their shit at gunpoint?
The moratorium is actually since 2000, but only since 2006 in its current form. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
Thankfully, no country, much less any multinational corporation, would ever dare cross the UN’s nonbinding, unenforceable moratorium. Can you imagine how stern the tone of the statement of condemnation would be, once it was worded such that a reasonable plurality of countries would agree to back it?
There would totally be an open letter and dozens of people would sign it
GMO skepticism or not, Monsanto is one of the most evil companies in the world and a perfect example of what makes the profit motive such an inefficient organizer of production and distribution
Also, most farmers use hybrid crops, which you already can’t save, because they’re hybrids. (You can save them, but they’re not going to produce the same plants you get them from).
Whether a plant species is hybridized has little effect on whether it grows true from seed or only via cuttings.
Wild maple trees for example do not grow true from seed.
Apples are a prime example.
Wild maple trees for example do not grow true from seed.
How do they reproduce?
Sexual reproduction via flowers+seeds.
When self-fertilizing, the offspring are not identical.
Oh OK, that makes sense - you’re talking about clones right? I thought you were saying that they don’t even come out the same species 🤣
Does anyone else feel like this entire post and most of the comments are coming straight from a Monsanto bot/shill factory?
You’ve never been on reddit? If someone mentions Monsanto anywhere, the thread gets flooded with shills. There are whole subreddits devoted to finding posts to shill.
That’s what I love about small social media outlets like Lemmy. The big corporations just don’t bother monitoring and influencing us, it’s not worth it. We can speak freely here. You can just tell me your real name and where you live, without fear of someone abducting your family.
This hard, sugarless, unripe tomato sure is red though
At this point, I barely even buy tomatoes to put into food anymore. If mom’s been growing them in her greenhouse any given year, I’ll eat a few off the vine. The stuff in stores? Ehh, it barely has flavour.
I’m the guy on the left just because until for-profit corporations are reigned in I don’t trust them with control of anything.
also the 30 bagged lunches…
Whatever the case, fuck Monsanto; free the seed.
You know that Lemmy has made it when the Monsanto shills from Reddit join.
What about seedless watermelon
Companies DO irradiate non organic ginger though, sterilizing it, before shipping it to stores.
Unfortunately terminator seeds very much are a thing North America.
I’m not a native English speaker but that sounds like it’s talking about the potential harms of such terminator seeds and not saying they’re in the market as of now.
That entire page says “this would be a bad thing to exist”. But it doesn’t. There are no commercial terminator seeds.
Well, it says “this would be a bad thing to sell,” my read is that it exists and Monsanto owns the IP.
I’d say “that’s the point” if this was put out by modern media…both sides are doing this to build engagement and support. That is, writing about something, but hiding the fact that it’s nothing. They take a small fact that on its own is true…but is really quite unimportant to the larger question. They then build up on that one small fact and make it out to be a smoking gun.
They may even leave out completely relevant facts. Like in this article it says “Monsanto pledged to not commercialize the seed,” but doesn’t mention the UN COP8 moratorium on them.
But the other thing is…op posted this from a college website, possibly because they think it’s an academic paper…but it’s not. It’s a summary of case studies in from their CONS200 “Foundations of conservation” program.
