Quote:

---

Not quite the same as holding seed back for next year's planting, but I always thought this ruling was wrong

---

I don't.

Farmers who paid for the technology (GMO seeds), brought their harvested soybeans to the elevator at year end, and sold them for use as feed, most likely. So did lots of farmers who did not plant GMO seeds. The guys growing GMO seeds had signed a contract that they wouldn't save their seeds.

He then bought these GMO and non-GMO mixed beans from the elevator, and planted these "bin-run seeds". Not an uncommon practice for non-hybrid crops like wheat or soybeans. Some of those seeds in the elevator would be Roundup Ready, some would not.

Had he simply grown those beans and harvested them, no one would give a crap.

Instead, he used the technology (Roundup) to intentionally select for beans that were GMO Roundup resistant. He sprayed Roundup, the non-GMO died, the GMO lived. He then selected those beans and replanted them to use the Roundup Ready technology without paying for it.

For those that don't know, something similar is in place for non-GMO crops. Say that A&M develops a new wheat variety, lets call it TAM77. They release it to seed companies, who grow it out, then sell it to farmers as TAM77. It will cost more, because the seed company pays a license fee to A&M.

As a farmer, I can save seed from that crop, and plant it back the next year. What I cannot do, is bag it up and sell it the next year to another farmer, as TAM77. I would be cheating A&M out of its license fee.

Carnwellag2 said:

---

those are some HIGH prices!

---

I guess you're talking about the "Rancher's Storefront" prices back on page 1?

Well, here's the good news. People don't have to buy from them, the Walmart is right down the road.

These places make their money because people are willing to pay more for real or perceived differences in quality, taste, and food safety. Or maybe they like buying local and supporting neighbors.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not quite the same as holding seed back for next year's planting, but I always thought this ruling was wrong

---

I don't.

Farmers who paid for the technology (GMO seeds), brought their harvested soybeans to the elevator at year end, and sold them for use as feed, most likely. So did lots of farmers who did not plant GMO seeds. The guys growing GMO seeds had signed a contract that they wouldn't save their seeds.

He then bought these GMO and non-GMO mixed beans from the elevator, and planted these "bin-run seeds". Not an uncommon practice for non-hybrid crops like wheat or soybeans. Some of those seeds in the elevator would be Roundup Ready, some would not.

Had he simply grown those beans and harvested them, no one would give a crap.

Instead, he used the technology (Roundup) to intentionally select for beans that were GMO Roundup resistant. He sprayed Roundup, the non-GMO died, the GMO lived. He then selected those beans and replanted them to use the Roundup Ready technology without paying for it.

For those that don't know, something similar is in place for non-GMO crops. Say that A&M develops a new wheat variety, lets call it TAM77. They release it to seed companies, who grow it out, then sell it to farmers as TAM77. It will cost more, because the seed company pays a license fee to A&M.

As a farmer, I can save seed from that crop, and plant it back the next year. What I cannot do, is bag it up and sell it the next year to another farmer, as TAM77. I would be cheating A&M out of its license fee.

---

The question for me is how many times the creator gets to collect on the license. If you buy a book and read it, the publisher and author get their cuts on the first sale. But if that same book cycles through Half-Priced Books several times, no one gets a cut except Half-Priced Books.

If this farmer's neighbor planted RoundUp Ready seed adjacent to him, and it cross-pollinated with his own crops, and then he went through this same exercise of selective cultivation, I don't see how that is any different than buying it at the elevator.

That fact that it was intended for feed doesn't matter imo. People buy all sorts of things and repurpose them all the time without purchasing new licenses on the IP.

Burdizzo said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not quite the same as holding seed back for next year's planting, but I always thought this ruling was wrong

---

I don't.

Farmers who paid for the technology (GMO seeds), brought their harvested soybeans to the elevator at year end, and sold them for use as feed, most likely. So did lots of farmers who did not plant GMO seeds. The guys growing GMO seeds had signed a contract that they wouldn't save their seeds.

He then bought these GMO and non-GMO mixed beans from the elevator, and planted these "bin-run seeds". Not an uncommon practice for non-hybrid crops like wheat or soybeans. Some of those seeds in the elevator would be Roundup Ready, some would not.

Had he simply grown those beans and harvested them, no one would give a crap.

Instead, he used the technology (Roundup) to intentionally select for beans that were GMO Roundup resistant. He sprayed Roundup, the non-GMO died, the GMO lived. He then selected those beans and replanted them to use the Roundup Ready technology without paying for it.

For those that don't know, something similar is in place for non-GMO crops. Say that A&M develops a new wheat variety, lets call it TAM77. They release it to seed companies, who grow it out, then sell it to farmers as TAM77. It will cost more, because the seed company pays a license fee to A&M.

As a farmer, I can save seed from that crop, and plant it back the next year. What I cannot do, is bag it up and sell it the next year to another farmer, as TAM77. I would be cheating A&M out of its license fee.

---

The question for me is how many times the creator gets to collect on the license. If you buy a book and read it, the publisher and author get their cuts on the first sale. But if that same book cycles through Half-Priced Books several times, no one gets a cut except Half-Priced Books.

If this farmer's neighbor planted RoundUp Ready seed adjacent to him, and it cross-pollinated with his own crops, and then he went through this same exercise of selective cultivation, I don't see how that is any different than buying it at the elevator.

That fact that it was intended for feed doesn't matter imo. People buy all sorts of things and repurpose them all the time without purchasing new licenses on the IP.

---

I have no knowledge of this industry but if you sell a book to half price books, you don't expect half price to sell it to someone that is going to make 1,000 copies and sell them for profit.

Half-Priced Books can sell it over and over again and make a profit without paying for a license and sales agreement because in that business model there is one opportunity for the publisher and author to get it. There is a concept of fair use where the excepts from the text may be used for other purposes.

Once that individual soybean kernel becomes a component in a larger commodity sold by the bushel and indistinguishable from almost all other soybean kernels without specialized knowledge and equipment, I don't feel like the license is enforceable. I doubt the folks at the elevator or the soybean mill really care about the genetics of the commodity they are handling. Moreover, the genetic information has been co-mingled and changed through the natural processes of pollination. Monsanto sold the license to the grower in order to produce a commodity, and so that the grower could improve his yield and profit. That step has happened. My opinion is that once that licensed IP material gets modified through naturally occuring processes and blended with other natural genetics, the rights to the license fade significantly.

Quote:

---

Once that individual soybean kernel becomes a component in a larger commodity sold by the bushel and indistinguishable from almost all other soybean kernels without specialized knowledge and equipment,

---

Not so much. All he needed was a planter and a sprayer.

Quote:

---

Half-Priced Books can sell it over and over again and make a profit without paying for a license and sales agreement because in that business model there is one opportunity for the publisher and author to get it. There is a concept of fair use where the excepts from the text may be used for other purposes.

---

So the flaw in your analogy is this. The author and publisher license that one copy of the book. That printed book can be sold over and over.

It is not legal to copy the text of that book, and sell that without the permission of the author and publisher, or without paying them a license fee. I cannot take their intellectual property and reproduce it for my own profit.

If I buy a bag of GMO soybeans, I am paying for the seed and a fee for the intellectual property, the GMO. I can resell that bag of beans at half price seeds. What I can't do is "copy" that bag of seeds, and profit from that, any more than I can copy a book and sell it.

There's also the concept of fairness. The guy in this court case was cheating the system to profit personally, not only at the expense of the company, but at the expense of his fellow farmers who played by the rules and paid the fees.

To me, it's the same as squatting on a national park without paying the camping fees, or shooting a deer without paying for a license.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Half-Priced Books can sell it over and over again and make a profit without paying for a license and sales agreement because in that business model there is one opportunity for the publisher and author to get it. There is a concept of fair use where the excepts from the text may be used for other purposes.

---

So the flaw in your analogy is this. The author and publisher license that one copy of the book. That printed book can be sold over and over.

It is not legal to copy the text of that book, and sell that without the permission of the author and publisher, or without paying them a license fee. I cannot take their intellectual property and reproduce it for my own profit.

If I buy a bag of GMO soybeans, I am paying for the seed and a fee for the intellectual property, the GMO. I can resell that bag of beans at half price seeds. What I can't do is "copy" that bag of seeds, and profit from that, any more than I can copy a book and sell it.

There's also the concept of fairness. The guy in this court case was cheating the system to profit personally, not only at the expense of the company, but at the expense of his fellow farmers who played by the rules and paid the fees.

To me, it's the same as squatting on a national park without paying the camping fees, or shooting a deer without paying for a license.

---

He isn't cheating the first grower because they have already realized the benefit of buying the licensed product, growing it, and selling it. They can't hold that produced seed back and grow another crop with it next year because they, but they should be able to legally do the same thing grower 2 did.

If you are building a cattle herd, do you not go looking for good genetics and buy them on the open market?

Quote:

---

He isn't cheating the first grower

---

I'd argue he is cheating the first grower, as well as the company, and anyone else who wants to benefit from GMO in the future.

He is stealing the technology from the company. And as with all theft, the company will have to raise prices on the customers who don't steal, to pay for the theft. That is, if they even continue in the business. If they can't control their intellectual property, they won't keep developing and selling GMO seeds.

Quote:

---

If you are building a cattle herd, do you not go looking for good genetics and buy them on the open market?

---

As far as I know, no one has spent billions of dollars developing GMO cattle, and trying to recover that money in the marketplace.

The breeders develop their lines through selective breeding and selection from the offspring. They do it, knowing that they can make a profit on the way genetics are bought and sold for the first generation of offspring. Anything after that is a crap shoot, unlike (some) plants that are self pollinated and breed true.

I buy wagyu beef from a local producer. If you are local and want more than some set amount, they will even deliver it to you.

In the past, I have also bought grass fed beef directly from two different area ranches, one in the Texas Panhandle and one in the Oklahoma Panhandle. They sold great beef, but neither stayed in that side of the business for long. They are still ranching, though.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Not an uncommon practice for non-hybrid crops like wheat or soybeans.

---

Is GM wheat available in the US now? I know that at least one GM wheat had been developed, but I haven't heard of it being made commercially available.

You touch on an important point in regards to other crops such as corn. Sure, you can save corn and grow it the next year, but that would not be in a farmer's interest because the second and later generations of the hybrid would be far less consistent than the F1 Hybrid and crop yields would necessarily be much lower.

Long before GM corn, F1 hybrids accounted for most of the corn grown in the US. I don't remember the exact numbers, but by 1960 or so, I think that something like 75% to 85% of all corn grown on US farms was F1 Hybrids. The increased crop yields from F1 Hybrids made buying new seed each year economically viable.

Of course, you know that, but most people don't understand that at all.

For those who want to save corn and plant it the next year, there are heirloom gardeners who do that every year, keeping some of the old varieties of different vegetables going.

No GMO wheat is commercially available in the United States.

There are several crops grown in the US that are NOT hybrids. Wheat, soybeans, and cotton, for instance. Saving seeds from any of those would breed true.


Corn and sorghums are usually hybrids, and as you said, would be useless to save seed. Lots of tomatoes are hybrids, too.

But as is often pointed out here, you don't have to buy 'GMO seeds. You don't even have to buy hybrid seeds. 'This is true for farmers and gardeners, as well.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

No GMO wheat is commercially available in the United States.

There are several crops grown in the US that are NOT hybrids. Wheat, soybeans, and cotton, for instance. Saving seeds from any of those would breed true.


Corn and sorghums are usually hybrids, and as you said, would be useless to save seed. Lots of tomatoes are hybrids, too.

But as is often pointed out here, you don't have to buy 'GMO seeds. You don't even have to buy hybrid seeds. 'This is true for farmers and gardeners, as well.

---

One interesting GM product is a rice that makes Vitamin A that can reportedly make massive difference in the health of people in certain countries.

I remember reading about the GM Flavr Savr tomatoes, but they never amounted to much of anything.

I just wish that someone would develop GM peanuts with the allergens removed.

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Ok. This can be great for the average person not in a city.

So now the real question. How do you do this without losing oversite to health and safety. Because I don't think the average person on here understands what inspected facilities have to go through in time, cost, and requirements.

---

Simple answer is education for the cattle ranchers. If they want to stay in business they will produce quality meat. If they sell to a retailer, like HEB, then the burden shifts to HEB that they are reselling quality meat. Don't need a bunch of government employees looking over everyone's shoulder and adding regulation. If you want to stay in business, ranchers and supermarkets, you do your due diligence. That's the beauty of capitalism. You protect your livelihood and compete at the highest level.

---

This is niave at best. I hope. See the post above about reality of the food industry and inspection requirements.

We absolutly need goverment oversite to ensure an even playing field across facilities and verification of safe food handling pracitices. And we especially need the ability to trace evertying accordingly when the inevitable issue (mad cow, bacterial contamination, foreign objects incorproated, etc.) recalls or health outbrakes happen.

Like most posts on this board 97% of the people typing have little to no undestanding of the topic. Outside of co-ops popping up that will still have to abide by inspection and health guidelines and the incurred costs (in inspectors, QA personnel, equipment, and facility cleaning, etc.) it most likely won't change much, if anything in pricing to consumers.

Where it could change something is attempting to break pricing controls of the big houses. But in the end like most similar attempts of deregulation, it just allows others to participate at the same higher pricing (if they can find the financing to play).

I'm in the food commodity industry and ***** regularly about the costs, impacts, and general PITA the various certification and inspections requirements impact all kinds of products. But they are there for a reason.

---

We really don't though.

Last I checked, even if a cut of beef has a USDA inspected stamp on it and you end up getting sick because it had something wrong with it, the USDA tells you they are really sorry and that's just about it. You as a consumer have zero recourse. And for all the "government inspection is the greatest thing ever!!!!" - how many thousands of pounds of meat, vegetables, etc. been recalled because after the fact it was discovered that it was contaminated? Even though it was inspected.

Do I think it's a good idea to have inspection? Most of the time I do. Where I think it has the most value is the back tracing ability - but that is a reactive component, not a proactive one. But I don't look at it as some magic bullet that fixes everything and certainly don't think it is an absolute requirement. Man made it a long, long time before the idea that somebody working for a government agency needed to inspect food.

---

Why USDA inspections are important.

Damn the green revolution.

While, the intentions were well meaning, we removed the natural population guard rails in Third World countries. That's the reason shizHolz countries are invading everywhere else because we gave them the means to overpopulate.

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Ok. This can be great for the average person not in a city.

So now the real question. How do you do this without losing oversite to health and safety. Because I don't think the average person on here understands what inspected facilities have to go through in time, cost, and requirements.

---

Simple answer is education for the cattle ranchers. If they want to stay in business they will produce quality meat. If they sell to a retailer, like HEB, then the burden shifts to HEB that they are reselling quality meat. Don't need a bunch of government employees looking over everyone's shoulder and adding regulation. If you want to stay in business, ranchers and supermarkets, you do your due diligence. That's the beauty of capitalism. You protect your livelihood and compete at the highest level.

---

This is niave at best. I hope. See the post above about reality of the food industry and inspection requirements.

We absolutly need goverment oversite to ensure an even playing field across facilities and verification of safe food handling pracitices. And we especially need the ability to trace evertying accordingly when the inevitable issue (mad cow, bacterial contamination, foreign objects incorproated, etc.) recalls or health outbrakes happen.

Like most posts on this board 97% of the people typing have little to no undestanding of the topic. Outside of co-ops popping up that will still have to abide by inspection and health guidelines and the incurred costs (in inspectors, QA personnel, equipment, and facility cleaning, etc.) it most likely won't change much, if anything in pricing to consumers.

Where it could change something is attempting to break pricing controls of the big houses. But in the end like most similar attempts of deregulation, it just allows others to participate at the same higher pricing (if they can find the financing to play).

I'm in the food commodity industry and ***** regularly about the costs, impacts, and general PITA the various certification and inspections requirements impact all kinds of products. But they are there for a reason.

---

We really don't though.

Last I checked, even if a cut of beef has a USDA inspected stamp on it and you end up getting sick because it had something wrong with it, the USDA tells you they are really sorry and that's just about it. You as a consumer have zero recourse. And for all the "government inspection is the greatest thing ever!!!!" - how many thousands of pounds of meat, vegetables, etc. been recalled because after the fact it was discovered that it was contaminated? Even though it was inspected.

Do I think it's a good idea to have inspection? Most of the time I do. Where I think it has the most value is the back tracing ability - but that is a reactive component, not a proactive one. But I don't look at it as some magic bullet that fixes everything and certainly don't think it is an absolute requirement. Man made it a long, long time before the idea that somebody working for a government agency needed to inspect food.

---

The average life expectancy in 1906, when federal meat inspection really began, was about 48. Today it is 79. A lot of that is due to diseases not killing young children, but dramatic increases in sanitation, some by force from the government, contributed as well.

HTownAg98 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Ok. This can be great for the average person not in a city.

So now the real question. How do you do this without losing oversite to health and safety. Because I don't think the average person on here understands what inspected facilities have to go through in time, cost, and requirements.

---

Simple answer is education for the cattle ranchers. If they want to stay in business they will produce quality meat. If they sell to a retailer, like HEB, then the burden shifts to HEB that they are reselling quality meat. Don't need a bunch of government employees looking over everyone's shoulder and adding regulation. If you want to stay in business, ranchers and supermarkets, you do your due diligence. That's the beauty of capitalism. You protect your livelihood and compete at the highest level.

---

This is niave at best. I hope. See the post above about reality of the food industry and inspection requirements.

We absolutly need goverment oversite to ensure an even playing field across facilities and verification of safe food handling pracitices. And we especially need the ability to trace evertying accordingly when the inevitable issue (mad cow, bacterial contamination, foreign objects incorproated, etc.) recalls or health outbrakes happen.

Like most posts on this board 97% of the people typing have little to no undestanding of the topic. Outside of co-ops popping up that will still have to abide by inspection and health guidelines and the incurred costs (in inspectors, QA personnel, equipment, and facility cleaning, etc.) it most likely won't change much, if anything in pricing to consumers.

Where it could change something is attempting to break pricing controls of the big houses. But in the end like most similar attempts of deregulation, it just allows others to participate at the same higher pricing (if they can find the financing to play).

I'm in the food commodity industry and ***** regularly about the costs, impacts, and general PITA the various certification and inspections requirements impact all kinds of products. But they are there for a reason.

---

We really don't though.

Last I checked, even if a cut of beef has a USDA inspected stamp on it and you end up getting sick because it had something wrong with it, the USDA tells you they are really sorry and that's just about it. You as a consumer have zero recourse. And for all the "government inspection is the greatest thing ever!!!!" - how many thousands of pounds of meat, vegetables, etc. been recalled because after the fact it was discovered that it was contaminated? Even though it was inspected.

Do I think it's a good idea to have inspection? Most of the time I do. Where I think it has the most value is the back tracing ability - but that is a reactive component, not a proactive one. But I don't look at it as some magic bullet that fixes everything and certainly don't think it is an absolute requirement. Man made it a long, long time before the idea that somebody working for a government agency needed to inspect food.

---

The average life expectancy in 1906, when federal meat inspection really began, was about 48. Today it is 79. A lot of that is due to diseases not killing young children, but dramatic increases in sanitation, some by force from the government, contributed as well.

---

The overwhelming majority of the increase in life expectancy is the invention of penicillin, the discovery of how typhoid spread and proving that not shtting in your drinking water was a good thing and the general increase in the availability of both food and medical care over anything related to food sanitation or mass death prevention by food inspection.

Farmers processing their own meat and selling them to the consumers is what created the need for the USDA.

Perhaps rolling back all those food and safety regulations wasn't such a good idea after all.

Diarrhea lettuce.
Salmonella eggs.
Recalled buffalo wings.
E-coli rice.

What else could go wrong