Re: [CH] Saving Seed Becomes Illegal

The Old Bear (oldbear@arctos.com)
Fri, 07 Aug 1998 08:22:17 -0400

In Chile-Heads Digest, v.5 #7, Rob Pieters wrote:

| Date: 05 Aug 1998 14:05:14 -0500
| From: "Pieters, Rob (NL01)" <Rob.Pieters@Netherlands.honeywell.com>
| Subject: [CH] Saving Seed Becomes Illegal
| 
| Through the Veggie mailing list I've received the message and 
| attachment below, seems that saving our own pepper seeds will 
| become illegal.
| 
| Hot regards
| Rob
| 
| To all Seed list members,
| 
| As we all share a need/love of growing from seed I thought you would
| want to know what is quietly taking place.I will refrain from comment
| hoping you will read this page for yourself and direct your actions
| accordingly.One thing I think we can agree on is its not difficult 
| to imagine this could forever alter gardening as we  know it and the
| uncertainty if they would be content with the commercial crops
| only....Please read and share this with others..Your opinion counts 
| with your legislator.
| Connie Hoy
| http://www.life.ca/nl/61/seedsaving.html


A success or failure of this scheme will depend upon the reaction 
in the marketplace.  The issue does not seem much different than 
copy-protection on software media: something which has all but 
disappeared in most shrink-wrapped categories because of its 
poor acceptance by the consumer.

Consider the simple equation that a farmer will use: is this 
genetically altered seed going to produce such a better yield that 
it will offset any cost savings I would get by using a conventional 
seed and being able to replant saved seed in future years?  When 
viewed this way, a seed company would have to have a remarkable 
product to attract those seed-saving farmers -- or the company 
would be paying to license this technology to sell their product 
to farmers who were not planning to save seed anyway.

I'm not saying that I think this is a good idea or even that this 
idea has no implications for agriculture.  However, it probably will 
not be as widely employed as one might expect on first glance.

On the brighter side, consider all the concern voiced about 
genetically altered plants such as the now-available freeze-tolerant 
tomato.  One of the concerns has been that a genetically altered 
plant type would self-propagate and drive out natural species.  It 
would seem that this new technology which prevents the plant from 
seeding a second generation would be useful in mitigating those 
particular apprehensions.

On a related note, a BBC news story recently told of protests by 
farmers in India concerning the patenting of a genetically 
engineered rice strain and the granting of a trademark name of 
"Basmati" to this rice.  Basmati is a region of India which has 
grown a premium rice for centuries and which markets its product 
under its untrademarked regional name.   But now the genetically 
engineered seed will use that name as a trademark -- which I beleive 
was granted because the U.S. patent office accepted the claim that 
the genetically engineered rice was qualitatively indistiguishable 
from the Indian-grown traditional strain.  Indian farmers are 
concerned that they have lost control of selling rice labeled 
"Basmati" unless they purchase the engineered seed.  (This may or 
may not be the case -- stay tuned to your agricultural news 
station for late breaking developments.)

One of the Bsamati news stories is available on the BBC web page at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/despatches/newsid_73000/73531.stm

Interestingly, consider the implications of this for regionally 
identified crops such as Vidalia onions (which is trademarked by 
the agriculture department in Georgia) or New Mexico Green Chiles 
(which I believe is now as generic as "Swiss" cheese.)

Cheers,
The Old Bear (tm)