Illegal to Grow Own Food

[Tonington]

I can read English just fine.

From the Patent and trademark office:
To be patentable, it would also be required:

• That the plant was invented or discovered and, if discovered, that the discovery was made in a cultivated area.
• That the plant is not a plant which is excluded by statute, where the part of the plant used for asexual reproduction is not a tuber food part, as with potato or Jerusalem artichoke.
• That the person or persons filing the application are those who actually invented the claimed plant; i.e., discovered or developed and identified or isolated the plant, and asexually reproduced the plant.
• That the plant has not been sold or released in the United States of America more than one year prior to the date of the application.
• That the plant has not been enabled to the public, i.e., by description in a printed publication in this country more than one year before the application for patent with an offer to sale; or by release or sale of the plant more than one year prior to application for patent.
• That the plant be shown to differ from known, related plants by at least one distinguishing characteristic, which is more than a difference caused by growing conditions or fertility levels, etc.
• The invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention by applicant.

The plants they are patenting, are plants they created. They didn't find round-up ready canola, corn, or soybeans growing on their plots of land.

They engineered new plant varieties.

Spaghetti squash, is not a patentable plant. It's already known.

Pony up and show me this plant that they have patented without changing the genetics or the expression of those genetics.

 

[petros]

Yup I was right. You can't read english.

Spaghetti squash, is not a patentable plant. It's already known.

EXACTLY...it is a cultivar. Monsanto, Aventis, et al. Collected the seed, reproduced it asexually and pateneted the seed they produced.

Read this again and use a dictionary if you have to.

A living plant organism which expresses a set of characteristics determined by its single, genetic makeup or genotype, (Spaghetti squash) which can be duplicated through asexual reproduction, but which can not otherwise be "made" or "manufactured." to make more Spaghetti squash.

Get it?

 

[Tonington]

EXACTLY...it is a cultivar. Monsanto, Aventis, et al. Collected the seed, reproduced it asexually and pateneted the seed they produced.

The cultivar is only patentable if it contains some novel new trait. Spaghetti squash is not a cultivar. It is not patentable. If they have a modified spaghetti squash, then they can patent it.

I don't object to that. If they spent the time and money developing a new spaghetti squash, they should patent it.

You're not providing any proof that they can take a wild plant and patent it. They can, if they find it growing on their cultivated land, and it is previously unknown to science. They can, if they found it elsewhere and modified it. They can't just slap a name on spaghetti squash and patent it. It has to be altered, or it must be new. Otherwise there is nothing to patent.

Monsanto has patented the seeds they have because they changed it. That's how they know that a farmer has their product on the field. They can identify the difference between the non-Monsanto type and their own creation.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Trex]

There have been a few legitimate gripes about Monsanto in the past.

Some of their GM products have tended to drift and express where they should not.
Most if not all of Monsanto's patent seed products have both built in second generation sterility as well as a suicide gene.
Good and well, however farming neighbors of Monsanto seeded fields have had volunteer seeding and cross fertilization occur.
This originally was impossible according to Monsanto.
Then Monsanto sued all farmers who had detectable Monsanto genes in their crops.

So we have genetic cross contamination with patented Monsanto genes going on.
And they are forcing all the surrounding farmers to switch to Monsanto seed or be sued for cross contamination.

And then in the third world Monsanto is accused of providing seed to government officials who then distributed it widely to the local growers (for a kickback from Monsanto of course).
The farmers tried to bank seed for next years crop but in this case the Monsanto product suicided after one crop.
The farmers had not saved any of their previous original seed stock and so were left with no seed and are now at the mercy of Monsanto.

Maybe its all rumor, but Monsanto seems to be accused of a couple of less than completely ethical maneuvers.

Trex

 

[TenPenny]

It's fun watching someone take stuff out of context, totally misconstrue the meaning of it, and then try to bludgeon everyone over the head with an invented crisis.

 

[petros]

The cultivar is only patentable if it contains some novel new trait. Spaghetti squash is not a cultivar. It is not patentable. If they have a modified spaghetti squash, then they can patent it

No it doesn't. It's first come first serve. Wild seed or any unpatented cultivated crop such as spaghetti squash and all it's sub types are collected "cultivated" in a grow room then genes are analyzed and patented and name trade marked.

I don't have to translate this into Nova Scotian do I by Jesus?

 

[Tonington]

No it doesn't. It's first come first serve. Wild seed or any unpatented cultivated crop such as spaghetti squash and all it's sub types are collected "cultivated" in a grow room then genes are analyzed and patented and name trade marked.

It's only patented if the genes were changed. Otherwise, how do they determine their spaghetti squash, from mine? They can't, and they would have no way of proving any such thing in a court. Your own link makes that clear. The bullets I quoted from the patent office makes that clear.

Get a clue.

 

[Stretch]

are you folk aware that by buying the mosanto seed, the seed from the fruit that the original mosnato seed produced, wont reproduce.....you have to buy more seed from monsanto for next yr?
PHUKEM!!!
you play their silly little game and we're all screwed. already their gm corn has jumped species in mexico......thats just the start, they also have what they term as a suicide gene....which when introduced could/will wipe out the rainforest.

 

[TenPenny]

are you folk aware that by buying the mosanto seed, the seed from the fruit that the original mosnato seed produced, wont reproduce.....you have to buy more seed from monsanto for next yr?
PHUKEM!!!
you play their silly little game and we're all screwed. already their gm corn has jumped species in mexico......thats just the start, they also have what they term as a suicide gene....which when introduced could/will wipe out the rainforest.

so don't buy the goddam seed, buy normal seed like you've always done!

jeesus, what's your problem?

 

[Stretch]

so don't buy the goddam seed, buy normal seed like you've always done!

jeesus, what's your problem?

it's getting to the point where you're either not allowd to or have no choice........ask the farmers in India.

 

[barney]

Put your money where your mouth is.

I'd need to be a bloody millionaire to fill that hole.

What part of this food bill specifically is favorable to agri-business at the expense of consumers?

There's no bloody way I'm going to go over this long document with you. It's been done. Read around. That said, here are the main areas of concern (find them yourself):

- Sterilization/bureaucratic requirements: Meeting them places a huge strain on small farms, causing them to become unviable. This results in agri-business (i.e. large-scale monculture farming schemes) monopolizing the food market and being able to force their products on the consumer.

- Food production in general: that part isn't specified in the bill, it's implied (i.e. the vague nature of the bill allows it to be extended to many different areas, including your backyard).

You ask for specifics: The bill has few (i.e. the things that need specifics are vague--namely those aspects concerning what is acceptable under the legislation).

Common knowledge doesn't mean correct knowledge.

You're right: one often gets science types coming onto forums so supremely confident in their own common scientific knowledge that they can't see the obvious.

Just as common sense isn't all that desirable.

Don't knock it til you try it.

I'll bet most of you here arguing against the "evil corporations" have not one iota of comprehension concerning the trials and tests that are run on new drugs, and the lax food inspections.

[... And you're still in school; can't wait until you graduate and join the ranks of the official "experts" around here so you can wave your credentials around calling everyone not in your field an idiot.]

And the whole problem is that they don't know what the *uck they're doing at the FDA; they let all sorts of $hit get through and legitimately healthy stuff get canned. Their tests are skewed in favour of the very corporate interests we're talking about and they don't check for half the stuff they should be.

Oh but when this legislation is applied, you can bet that every organic farm in the USA will have armies of FDA inspectors meticulously checking that the farmer has completely ruined himself financially, keeping up with those new regulations designed to supposedly protect people from lax processing that doesn't even take place on organic farms. Yep, a real responsible bunch over at the FDA.

I mean you could give up modern medicine. Your life span will be greatly reduced. But at least you'll be sticking it to the corporations! :roll:

Boy that wasn't predictable. Standard go-back-to-living-in-caves spiel. Never fails.

Yeah that's what all this is about: letting them corporate bastards pay for trying to help us! Damn them for being so humanitarian! Damn them!!!

Explain. Your assertions are meaningless by themselves.

See above.

Take it from somebody who is studying agriculture at school. The trends in the marketplace today are towards farmer markets, and local produced goods. This is the antithesis to your rant here. Part of this switch has been the recent scandals over food safety. This law is addressing food safety, and if more people are moving towards the 'eat local philosophy' concurrently, then that's a good thing, no?

Yes that's a good thing (there are actually some issues there but I won't get into it) but the vast majority of American consumers aren't going that route; in part because buying processed has been drilled into their brains over time and because of agribusiness takeover (the bill just speeds up the process tenfold).

So you say. You're wrong. Paranoid delusions.

Hmm. Let's see: greedy people with wads of cash have the capacity to influence a highly "flexible" governmental system with only a few poor activists who can see the danger and a huge number of people who like to stick to commonly held conditioned beliefs. What oh what will the greedy people do? Sit on their butts and watch farmers squander what could have been huge profits of course. To think otherwise would be paranoid delusion!

 

[L Gilbert]

it's getting to the point where you're either not allowd to or have no choice........ask the farmers in India.

There are quite a few seed companies that won't have anything to do with the pharmaceutical companies and their genetic manipulation of plants. I think you read 1984 too many times and watched The Omega Man too many times.

 

[L Gilbert]

As many times as scheming companies like to steer the public into things, there will ALWAYS be someone around to throw a monkey wrench into their works. And it is usually someone that has a clear head and good sense, not someone that goes off on some conspiracy tangent everytime he reads 2 sentences in an article. If there was a conspiracy everytime someone squawked "conspiracy", half the planet would have had plastic surgery to fix noses that had been bitten off. lol

 

[Tonington]

There's no bloody way I'm going to go over this long document with you. It's been done. Read around. That said, here are the main areas of concern (find them yourself):

See, this is the problem. People like you who are too lazy to actually read these things, and instead you accept some loony explanation from a blogger that fits your preconceived notion of how the world works.

The article this thread is based on is pure crackpot nonsense. From the very first sentence.

- Food production in general: that part isn't specified in the bill, it's implied (i.e. the vague nature of the bill allows it to be extended to many different areas, including your backyard).

No, it does not. Your backyard doesn't produce enough produce to make it to market in interstate commerce. If it does, you're larger than just a simple backyard gardener, and you ought to be a responsible part of the agri-food system.

You're right: one often gets science types coming onto forums so supremely confident in their own common scientific knowledge that they can't see the obvious.

There is nothing common about scientific knowledge. Tacit knowing, and common knowledge are altogether different.

[... And you're still in school; can't wait until you graduate and join the ranks of the official "experts" around here so you can wave your credentials around calling everyone not in your field an idiot.]

I don't call everyone an idiot...only the idiots.

And the whole problem is that they don't know what the *uck they're doing at the FDA; they let all sorts of $hit get through and legitimately healthy stuff get canned. Their tests are skewed in favour of the very corporate interests we're talking about and they don't check for half the stuff they should be.

So, on the one hand you're slamming scientific knowledge, and at the same time saying they sometimes get things wrong. Then you move on to the juicy corporate interests angle.

So, what is your method for finding the truth? If it were up to you, how would we know what foods are safe, and which are not? What motivations do you have, besides sticking it to the businesses which make society possible? I'm not saying the world is perfect, far from it.

All I'm saying is maybe you folks should pick your battles a little more carefully. This bill has nothing to do with your backyard garden. Absolutely nothing. The FDA has a hard enough time inspecting meat packing plants. Now you think they're going to waste their time scouring backyards across America.

That's freaking hilarious! :lol:

Boy that wasn't predictable. Standard go-back-to-living-in-caves spiel. Never fails.

Yes, it is predictable when you use language that lumps everything together, and is without caveats. That's very lazy, no? This is why I ask you for specifics, but you're quite intent on staying with the rhetoric...

Yeah that's what all this is about: letting them corporate bastards pay for trying to help us! Damn them for being so humanitarian! Damn them!!!

Not at all, they're doing this for profit. You have a problem with that? If so, what is your solution, who should be researching and manufacturing new medications?

Yes that's a good thing (there are actually some issues there but I won't get into it) but the vast majority of American consumers aren't going that route; in part because buying processed has been drilled into their brains over time and because of agribusiness takeover (the bill just speeds up the process tenfold).

This bill does nothing to prevent a local farm market. You can't seriously be that daft.

 

[petros]

To fully understand what seed ownership means and what this bill means you have to fully understand what the term "trade and exchange of goods" means. Under those terms giving something away is an act of trade. So when you get right down to it feeding your family is an act of trade and subject to this bill. Why do you think it is called a bill anyway? Except for maybe a duck a bills always have a monetary attachment.

 

[Stretch]

HR 875/S 425: Farm to Fork Food Fascism Comes to America

Tags: SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE
Food is becoming a battle ground like no other: freedom, survival, fascistic take over of a once-free people (more or less, at least), corporate triumph over independent producers - it’s all happening around food. And the mechanism is simple: a set of bills ostensibly devoted to “food safety” and “food security”.
Change.org - Ideas for Change in America: Health Freedom