Comment Seedbanks (Score 1) 74
There are already seedbank organisations which are dedicated to preserving seed stock for free use, and there have been for a long time (since the 60s?).
Unfortunately I think they are going rapidly downhill, their stock is declining, in quality and quantity. There is a lot of corporate antipathy towards them (funny that). Even the research scientists tend to be allied with Evil Corporations(tm) these days (for e.g. an Australian university tried to patent genetic stock that it sourced from seedbanks, in direct violation of their contract (not sure of the outcome of the lawsuit, don't have any URLs, sorry)).
The thing about Monsanto's product is that farmers will have no choice but to use it. There are many reasons why this is so. For a start, it will not only have the terminator genes, it will also have other (to farmers) highly desirable genes. For example, if these plants are resistent to Round Up (Monsanto's flagship herbicide) farmers will be able to significantly increase their yields (by eliminating weeds) and lower their costs (by spraying it over their entire fields, instead of paying people to walk the rows spot spraying). This is just an example, it applies to all the other pest resistent genes that will only be available in terminator type plants. Farmers will have no choice but to use these seeds if they want to stay competitive, and therefore stay in farming. Chances are they will not even be able to position their crop as a premium product, because of packaging laws which make it illegal to state a product is not genetically engineered.
I would also not be surprised if newer varietals only came out in terminator form. Crop breeds have only a limited useful life span. Over time (5-10 years?) diseases adapt to attack the dominant crop breeds, and new varieties are introduced with better yields, better resistences, whatever. Older varieties yield less and are also worth less to buyers, especially those buying quality grain for human consumption.
And there is the point, as someone mentioned above, that farmers in the poorest regions are dependent on aid money and have to do what they are told by the aid suppliers, who have their own agendas...
Agricultural scientists have been discussing the issues this technology raises for years (I have no idea how long Monsanto has been working at this, but it has been common knowledge they are for a long time). The mood amongst the ones that I know is not happy.
Unfortunately I think they are going rapidly downhill, their stock is declining, in quality and quantity. There is a lot of corporate antipathy towards them (funny that). Even the research scientists tend to be allied with Evil Corporations(tm) these days (for e.g. an Australian university tried to patent genetic stock that it sourced from seedbanks, in direct violation of their contract (not sure of the outcome of the lawsuit, don't have any URLs, sorry)).
The thing about Monsanto's product is that farmers will have no choice but to use it. There are many reasons why this is so. For a start, it will not only have the terminator genes, it will also have other (to farmers) highly desirable genes. For example, if these plants are resistent to Round Up (Monsanto's flagship herbicide) farmers will be able to significantly increase their yields (by eliminating weeds) and lower their costs (by spraying it over their entire fields, instead of paying people to walk the rows spot spraying). This is just an example, it applies to all the other pest resistent genes that will only be available in terminator type plants. Farmers will have no choice but to use these seeds if they want to stay competitive, and therefore stay in farming. Chances are they will not even be able to position their crop as a premium product, because of packaging laws which make it illegal to state a product is not genetically engineered.
I would also not be surprised if newer varietals only came out in terminator form. Crop breeds have only a limited useful life span. Over time (5-10 years?) diseases adapt to attack the dominant crop breeds, and new varieties are introduced with better yields, better resistences, whatever. Older varieties yield less and are also worth less to buyers, especially those buying quality grain for human consumption.
And there is the point, as someone mentioned above, that farmers in the poorest regions are dependent on aid money and have to do what they are told by the aid suppliers, who have their own agendas...
Agricultural scientists have been discussing the issues this technology raises for years (I have no idea how long Monsanto has been working at this, but it has been common knowledge they are for a long time). The mood amongst the ones that I know is not happy.
