Anti-GMO activist admits he was wrong

[Silly Green Monkey]

Could such a scenario be that a pathogen appears/mutates that attacks all kinds of a plant, but a patented strain has resistance or immunity to it, resulting in that patented strain being the only surviving quantity of the plant? Like if someone had a patent on a strain of potatoes, and another blight struck that took out Idaho Golds (planted by just about everyone).

 

[Babbylonian]

Could such a scenario be that a pathogen appears/mutates that attacks all kinds of a plant, but a patented strain has resistance or immunity to it, resulting in that patented strain being the only surviving quantity of the plant? Like if someone had a patent on a strain of potatoes, and another blight struck that took out Idaho Golds (planted by just about everyone).

A patent whose enforcement turns out to be against the public interest could presumably be voided, just like any other contract. Remember, as a last resort the government still has plenty of guns if any corporation gets too uppity.

What would be more likely to happen is that the government would institute price controls such that seeds would have to be bought from the patent holders/licensees, but at prices that would ensure the continuation of the necessary food supply.

 

[Unabogie]

A patent whose enforcement turns out to be against the public interest could presumably be voided, just like any other contract. Remember, as a last resort the government still has plenty of guns if any corporation gets too uppity.

What would be more likely to happen is that the government would institute price controls such that seeds would have to be bought from the patent holders/licensees, but at prices that would ensure the continuation of the necessary food supply.

Which is the hypothetical I was addressing.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Actually, Round-Up ready crops don't have higher yield than the conventional version (e.g. this), the profitability to the farmer comes from saving money elsewhere (e.g. less labor), not higher yields..

But round up ready crops do have less of an environmental impact (which seemed to be the main point of the post), and other GM crops like bt-corn DO have higher yields.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Which is the hypothetical I was addressing.

I imagine when GM patents become more sophisticated and interdependent something like this would develop and the relevant court rulings (see the link to the orange book standard at the bottom) would apply. No need to invalidate a patent, just force reasonable licensing terms.

 

[Unabogie]

I imagine when GM patents become more sophisticated and interdependent something like this would develop and the relevant court rulings (see the link to the orange book standard at the bottom) would apply. No need to invalidate a patent, just force reasonable licensing terms.

Agreed. And if that happened, the profits of the company in question would be of secondary importance, behind the sanctity of the food pipeline. I'm surprised this is even controversial.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Agreed. And if that happened, the profits of the company in question would be of secondary importance, behind the sanctity of the food pipeline. I'm surprised this is even controversial.

The purpose of patents is to "promote the progress of science and the arts" ... profits are just the means.

 

[Jorghnassen]

But round up ready crops do have less of an environmental impact (which seemed to be the main point of the post), and other GM crops like bt-corn DO have higher yields.

The point I was making is that you can't equate GM with higher yields. That's the sales pitch, but it's not always true (and it's demonstrably false for some very popular GM crops). Again, I'm not saying GMO's are bad, just that the reality of them is more complex than the polarized, falsely-dichotomized GMOs versus organic farming debates. Agriculture is a more complex issue than this. World hunger is a more complex issue this. We can't just say: "GMOs = science = better; organic = woo = bad" or "GMOs = Monsanto = evil; organic = environmentally friendly = good".

The whole framework of the problems and solutions deserves to be examined in depth, we can't just accept pre-conceived ideas about these issues. Bt is a classic example I like to bring up as a devil's advocate to either side (to show that industrial agriculture and organic farming aren't as far apart as imagined): Bt is a certified organic pesticide, allowed in organic farming. It's also the natural pesticide in the controversial Bt corn which (allegedly) had a negative impact on monarch butterflies population. Bt corn was created for easier (possibly cheaper) pest control, but it also affected non-pest species. Environmental impact (if that's what we're aiming to reduce) is complex to measure, and fraught with unintended consequences.

 

[!Kaggen]

Such rational posts should not go unrecognized