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)