Seeds and farming came to be known to man all over the world since the beginning of farming age and after harvesting season, seeds are kept aside to be used in the communities. Farmers knew very well that even they do not have much to consume or sell, provision must be made to make sure that planting material is available for the next planting season.
The adoption of genetically modified crop (GM), or biotechnologically engineered crops, have very widely publicized and strongly recommended to farmers planting but the fact that they are not allowed to save part of their harvest for planting again subsequent crop growing season as legal action will be instituted against them renders farming to be controlled by the GM patent ownership remote farmers. Therefore the massive campaign in favour of GM planting material has just been a mere product-advertising drive. Planting material must be bought to every cultivation period. This means that farming activities actually depend on the patenting company.
Farmers buy the Biotechnological seed to grow for the market and consumption. Thus the desire for others to enter agricultural patenting industries is now far too great as the industry is becoming a highly profitable business. Care must be taken now as opponents to this might be gathering momentum and in future concerns in other operational areas of similar practices. If a farmer can buy and grow but can’t totally own what he grows on his farm and has to be directed on his farm and has to remotely directed on how used the harvest; then he is like taking care of the materials.
I hope this tragedy will not be extended to the IVS clinical services. Family pays to own a baby that in future, the off-springs of that baby may belong to the original provider of the IVS specimen and that only the first generation proceed belongs to the buyer and he no legitimate claim over subsequent generations. There have been court cases in this regard in the area of GM seeds.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
This entry was posted on December 4, 2011 at 8:24 pm and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Critical opinion on seeds patenting on
by dascodSeeds and farming came to be known to man all over the world since the beginning of farming age and after harvesting season, seeds are kept aside to be used in the communities. Farmers knew very well that even they do not have much to consume or sell, provision must be made to make sure that planting material is available for the next planting season.
The adoption of genetically modified crop (GM), or biotechnologically engineered crops, have very widely publicized and strongly recommended to farmers planting but the fact that they are not allowed to save part of their harvest for planting again subsequent crop growing season as legal action will be instituted against them renders farming to be controlled by the GM patent ownership remote farmers. Therefore the massive campaign in favour of GM planting material has just been a mere product-advertising drive. Planting material must be bought to every cultivation period. This means that farming activities actually depend on the patenting company.
Farmers buy the Biotechnological seed to grow for the market and consumption. Thus the desire for others to enter agricultural patenting industries is now far too great as the industry is becoming a highly profitable business. Care must be taken now as opponents to this might be gathering momentum and in future concerns in other operational areas of similar practices. If a farmer can buy and grow but can’t totally own what he grows on his farm and has to be directed on his farm and has to remotely directed on how used the harvest; then he is like taking care of the materials.
I hope this tragedy will not be extended to the IVS clinical services. Family pays to own a baby that in future, the off-springs of that baby may belong to the original provider of the IVS specimen and that only the first generation proceed belongs to the buyer and he no legitimate claim over subsequent generations. There have been court cases in this regard in the area of GM seeds.
Like this:
This entry was posted on December 4, 2011 at 8:24 pm and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.