Goes to show that the Media is owned by the same slimballs that own agri-corp.Hurkyl said:Allow me to interrupt the two minute hate for a moment. Ignoring that the article seems awfully biased (I'm not saying it's wrong, just biased), don't you find it suspicious that it hasn't managed to become big news in the month since GRAIN wrote its first article on this?
tumor, that is incorrect. I posted the link to the actual law, you can read it for yourself, the Iraqi farmers cannot re-use patented seed, just like anyone else in the world.tumor said:Patented seeds and reusing them is a whole new story and has nothing to do with this new situation in Iraq.
What is going on is that Iraqi farmers are going to be persecuted for saving their property(seeds),I call this blackmail and form of terrorism!
Actually I should have said "protected" as in registered, it's in the link to the patent law that tumor's article is about.Moonbear said:Evo, I'm puzzled about how they would re-use patented seeds anyway...I thought if a plant produced fertile seeds, it wasn't patentable. I thought they had to be propagated only by asexual methods in order to qualify for a patent. I could be wrong on that though.
Good old ShrubCo (GOD must have made him do it)...A new report  by GRAIN and Focus on the Global South has found that new legislation in Iraq has been carefully put in place by the US that prevents farmers from saving their seeds and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations. This is a disastrous turn of events for Iraqi farmers, biodiversity and the country's food security. While political sovereignty remains an illusion, food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has been made near impossible by these new regulations.
"The US has been imposing patents on life around the world through trade deals. In this case, they invaded the country first, then imposed their patents. This is both immoral and unacceptable", said Shalini Bhutani, one of the report's authors.
russ_watters said:You sure about that....?
That's why I liked the idea of the counter-suit proposed in the article. Farmers should charge the agro companies for leasing space, maintenance, care etc... of any crops that were grown due to unwanted seed coming onto their lands.Smurf said:I've done some additional research, it seems farmers are getting screwed left and right whenever some GM seeds even blow into their crops from their neighbours they can get sued for it.
Tell me if farmers in third world countries where majority of patented seeds are being cultivated under the barrel of a gun have the resources and will to sue huge and rich agro companies?Evo said:That's why I liked the idea of the counter-suit proposed in the article. Farmers should charge the agro companies for leasing space, maintenance, care etc... of any crops that were grown due to unwanted seed coming onto their lands.
It should be a double edged sword.
The first thing I always do is check the source: is an activist website a reliable source? Second, I check for corroboration - provided by EVO in this case. The linked articles don't match the law they are describing or the interpretation of the other sources.z4955 said:How do we know how true these articles are?