|
|
Post by MikeH on Oct 13, 2014 9:13:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeH on Oct 13, 2014 10:22:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Oct 13, 2014 12:51:01 GMT -5
Poor Syngenta, an ardent suitor rejected.
|
|
|
|
Post by keen101 (Biolumo / Andrew B.) on Feb 17, 2016 14:06:15 GMT -5
Just only noticed this now on Patricks blog. (Thanks Patrick! Would love to see more about this in more detail)
Since i missed gardening in 2014 it looks like i also missed the organization of this. Glad to hear something like this has finally formed. I'd like to know more about it. Can someone in a nutshell outline it? What does the OSSI pledge mean? It sounds like Carol Deppe is a part of this, if so, that's pretty cool. I'll try listening to the NPR thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by billw on Feb 17, 2016 15:49:07 GMT -5
The pledge is very simple: You have the freedom to use these OSSI-Pledged seeds in any way you choose. In return, you pledge not to restrict others’ use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this pledge with any transfer of these seeds or their derivatives.
So, the only thing that you can't do with the seeds is apply another kind of intellectual property protection or use them to breed new varieties that will have such protections applied. All future generations must be offered under the OSSI pledge. This is exactly the same idea as the Gnu GPL in open source software.
Nobody knows if it is legally defensible, but in at least one article from Monsanto, it was described as "too contagious to touch," which is a common phrase used by the commercial software industry when discussing GPL code.
I suspect that any trip to court would result in a loss for the OSSI, but hopefully it will create enough concern that companies just avoid OSSI material entirely. I think it is most valuable because that OSSI pledge printed on a seed packet introduces a new idea and encourages people to think about what kinds of plant breeding they want to support.
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Feb 17, 2016 23:49:35 GMT -5
JLHudson has had this in place since at least 2000, it's much the same
IMPORTANT TERMS OF BUSINESS
In order to protect the Public Domain status of our seeds, as of June 1st, 2000, all seeds are supplied solely under the following conditions: We expressly prohibit the use of any seeds or plants supplied by us, or their progeny, in any form of genetic engineering, breeding, or research which will result in any form of life patent, variety protection, breeder's rights or any form of intellectual property applied to living things which would compromise the Public Domain status of the seeds, plants, their progeny and any genetic material therein. We expressly prohibit the transfer to any third party of any seeds, plants, their progeny or any portion of their genetic material without these prohibitions in place.
It's a nice effort , this is getting to be very serious business
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Feb 18, 2016 3:05:23 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah; the whole business of proprietary seed is long past acceptability; it's just an irrationality bullshit seizure of genetic material for privatization. These bastards are out to claim the commons for their own property.
Fuck 'em; this stuff belongs to us all, not just to a bunch of corporate dicks (most of whom don't grow shit).
|
|
|
|
Post by farmermike on Feb 19, 2016 2:09:40 GMT -5
I think it is most valuable because that OSSI pledge printed on a seed packet introduces a new idea and encourages people to think about what kinds of plant breeding they want to support. Seems to me that this is the key point. I'm sure that the average seed purchaser would, otherwise, not think much about this. Thanks billw! |
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Feb 21, 2016 20:05:08 GMT -5
The problem is that some people think that there is no such thing as non GMO seed anymore, I interrupted such a conversation in a grocery store when two women were wailing to each other about just that. None of my business and I didn't know either of them, but this stuff is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Mar 29, 2016 15:57:13 GMT -5
Since I have about 20 acres of land that needs organic matter it occurred to me to use all that seed that comes in things like peppers and squash to grow just to get something growing in land that is far too much for me to handle, with the idea of at least it will be helping to protect the soil from wind and give the soil life something to work with. Anything that actually grows will go back into the soil.
I got a couple of mini butternuts to try out last fall (after growing my own winter squash these were tasteless and not worth the power to cook them) and was bemused to find that out of all the seed in them maybe 3-5 might be viable. This is way different from previous times I've taken seed from a veggie and grown it, so wondering if the seed companies are starting to add the gene that inhibits or prevents the seed from being viable. The trap is closing...?
|
|
|
|
Post by gilbert on Mar 30, 2016 19:44:12 GMT -5
Supposedly the terminator gene is not actually being used in any (or at least many, it is hard to tell) crops.
Also, there are very few, if any, commercially produced GMO vegetable varieties. There is not enough money in them. A few tomatoes, some zucchini, papayas, and then all the grain, sugar, and oilseed crops.
Low viability might be parthenocarpic varieties, immature produce, or a number of different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Mar 30, 2016 20:57:22 GMT -5
So they say but some years ago now Stokes came out with corn? tomatoes. both? which had a patented gene called something like FlaVR SAVR so even if they aren't doing inter species splicing yet, at least some of their seed has been fiddled about with in the lab rather than a garden. They also, like most seed companies now, are either owned by or partnered with Syngenta whose business model is genetics. I see no reason to trust any of them to be forthcoming about what they are doing or not doing.
It might be very interesting if companies had to post their definition of what constituted genetic engineering in their catalogs. Double speak / smoke and mirrors is now the norm e.g when candy made out of sugar can be labelled sugar free because if one candy =one serving it doesn't constitute a sufficient amount of sugar to trigger labelling requirements. How can anyone wonder why goverments and businesses are regarded with a deep distrust?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Mar 30, 2016 21:30:46 GMT -5
In my world view, genetic engineering would include cytoplasmic male sterility caused by mixing the mitochondrial DNA of one species with the nuclear DNA of a different one. By that definition, many of the fresh vegetables at the grocery store could be called genetically modified.
My definition of terminator technology would include cytoplasmic male sterility. Because, it effectively prevents the reproduction of a variety.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Mar 31, 2016 1:23:18 GMT -5
Yesss; I'm sure companies like Syngenta/Monsanto would want to trumpet their activities, despite any popular resistance; after all, aren't their activities beneficial to us all? Surely they know what's best for us all, being big companies, with global perspectives, not like us peasants, with puny, local interests, like control of our lives. You know my response to their efforts; I don't have to repeat it.
I will anyway; us ratty, furry critters should eat the eggs of those scaly behemoths; they're too damned dumb to persist, regardless of their size or seniority.
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Apr 28, 2016 10:46:52 GMT -5
Yesterday was helping a friend prepare dinner and the peppers had NO seed inside, nary a one. Since generally even store peppers have quite a bit of seed, an abundance even, often, I believe that this is an indication of some meddling about. I have emailed the store headquarters with a sharply worded complaint.
Supposedly Walmart hit a backlash last year when it became known that it was selling GMO corn and vowed to stop it. Who knows if it's true or not, but bringing dissatisfaction (and a comment re Walmart's supposed experience) to the store management can't hurt.
|
|
