It is currently Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:27 pm

All times are UTC



Welcome
Welcome to dayvectors

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!





 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: [MON 18 JAN 16] NATURAL FOOD (2)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:56 pm 

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 2:07 pm
Posts: 24
Has thanked: 3 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Regarding GMO on international markets: Aside from health issues, another worry for other nations adopting GMO staples is intellectual property concerns. The industry leader Monsanto is based in the US. Large agricultural concerns, to say nothing of entire nations, have concerns about running into licensing issues and patent ambushes on their staple foods.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [MON 18 JAN 16] NATURAL FOOD (2)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:07 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 11:33 am
Posts: 35
Has thanked: 2 time
Have thanks: 4 time
I do not see how that concern is any different for GMO than for any crop variety produced by a large agritech company.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [MON 18 JAN 16] NATURAL FOOD (2)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:27 pm 

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 2:07 pm
Posts: 24
Has thanked: 3 time
Have thanks: 1 time
There are certain ag sectors where it isn't, where worldwide most of the harvest is already locked into IP-protected seeds and shoots. The fact that some vendor lock-in exists, however, isn't a reason to give into it across the board. In fact, experiencing the joys of vendor lock-in often makes customers paranoid about being caught more.

I'm not an expert but I have two guesses why GMO worries foreign agricultural interests more than, say, existing reliance on industrial hybrid seeds:
1) GM crops give a larger potential 'attack surface' for IP issues. Down to the genes.
2) GMO creates a higher barrier to entry. The research, development, and personnel costs to produce GMO crops is higher. For hybridization, sometimes a well-funded agricultural college can reverse-engineer a lot of the desired traits of certain industrial hybrids, and sidestep patent issues. It's unlikely they could do such things with GM crops.

Here is some pure speculation: if the logic of 'business-method' IP is extended to the rules governing biotech IP, one could develop a completely 'clean sheet' GM crop and still face litigation if the result is similar to existing patents. I don't know if current GM interests do any 'patent ambush' techniques as the tech sector often sees.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [MON 18 JAN 16] NATURAL FOOD (2)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:33 pm 

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 2:07 pm
Posts: 24
Has thanked: 3 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Tangentially Related: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-15/g ... ms/7091956

"Anyone with any doubt over the licensing status of the fruit that they are offered or are selling should contact Nutrafruit."

The Queen Garnet plum doesn't look to be GM; as far as I can tell it's a highly-regulated product of selective breeding. It's interesting that the variety was made by the Australia's Queensland government and licensed out to a single big private agricultural interest, Nutrafruit.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

suspicion-preferred