Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: thames_sider who wrote (98885)	5/23/2003 6:24:55 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Commercial growers have been using F1 hybrids for about 130 years now, since Beal's first corn cultivars. Non-viable seed has always been a given trade-off for increased yields and resistance. With F1 hybrids, the real non-viability of seed is a natural circumstance. With GM crops, the "perceived non-viability" is a patent issue. At the end of the day, there is no difference. Thus, if you have an issue with GM producers over this factor, it should logically be carried over to F1 hybrid producers of the last 130 years. After that, one might fault God or Mother Nature for imposing that "ethical issue" of seed viability upon F1 hybrids. Growers who have used F1 hybrids over the past 130 years don't have a problem with it. Those who do have a problem, don't use F1 hybrids. Simple. No problem exists. GM seed, in that respect, is the same thing. "The first, for example... farmers - especially 3rd world - commonly keep back part of the seed from a harvest - which they have grown, from seed which ultimately they have bought - to plant the following year's crop. GM seed producers would deny them this."

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next