Looks like the first line of my last post got deleted in transit.

examinator, I said better and meant better. It is popular because it is better. This is how the farmers who grow the Roundup Ready soybeans describe it. It provides better weed control and allows them to sow their crop without having to till the soil.

Once a product is on the market it is independently evaluated by those who buy it. They might initially get suckered in by advertising, but at the end of the day if the product doesn’t do the job they won’t be back to buy it again – or at least most won’t. In the case of GM crops they are intensively evaluated before they get to the market. No other crop grown is subject to nearly the same level of scrutiny.

With respect to GM crops (and several other areas) there is no choice but to have big business involved. The costs of regulation imposed by Governments are so high that only corporations with large financial reserves can afford to bring a product to market.

Examinator,

The farmers still have the option of buying standard non GM seed for the same price as previously.

"I posit that the product is too costly or else the *life science* Corp wouldn't have to indulging in uncompetitive, unfair practices to regain their investment." Assumes that farmers are idiot businessmen far more interested in "new / popular" products than ones that generate them money.

The level playing field is that the farmers still have the choice of the old product.

Monsanto have a patent on the new gene, as do drug companies etc, and have 10 to 30 years of protection before the technology can be copied legally.

No pharma company or other tech company would spend millions or billions developing new technology if they couldn't make a profit from it. Your argument that patents are uncompetitive is ludicrous.

>>...why not create flora which is of benefit to many & may even improve the salinity problem in many areas.<<

individual,

Saltbush fits the bill very well. While it's not a crop as such, it certainly can be used as feed for sheep, goats and cattle etc as well as helping to keep the topsoil intact in salty landscapes. Based on what I've seen on the Landline program (ABC), it is a good protein source (if my memory serves) and results in much better meat.

The irony is that saltbush was routinely cleared from farming properties ever since the early settlement days. Some farmers are trying to get it growing again on their properties.

Gentlemens

SM,Oh dear micro reading again,
I have no problems with patents per se, it's the "me too" ones and the other restrictive practices,
i.e.
- Mandating use of their other products,
- Yearly licensing on crops.
- The ramifications of being tied to their product...e.g. if a farmer goes back to non GM seed, the GM company can come in and if they find unintended GM by-product they can demand license fees. No *practical* redress.
- If it shows in the neighbour's crop same deal.
- Hardly fair for the small quasi cash cropper.
- Vertical marketing
- Biota raiding in Botanical gardens to avoid national origin royalties.
The GM companies claim all these practices are *necessary* to recoup their expenditures.
- It's also a single point failure.
- Pressuring other countries to accept their terms.

- It's the combination that adds up to a deliberate strategy to dominate. Survival of the biggest, less moral. (evolution says the most adaptable to prevailing conditions.) Equal Paying field... definitely not.

Show me where in our constitution or laws does does it give corps rights to do these either singularly or in combination? it doesn't
Its all from case law and precedents.
I would raise the issue of conservative inconsistency here i.e. They rail against court made (perverted) laws/judgments when They favour people but rely on it when it comes to corporations.

I repeat, it is this I object to not necessarily the product.
PS I note, you didn't counter my argument that if it's good enough for one side, it should be good enough for both.

The technique you three gentlemen are using is 'reduction to the ridiculous' or 'micro reasoning.' i.e. one ant in bed is ok when assessed individually but 50,000 is a *different* problem.
You are all wanting to discuss the pro of the single ant to justify the rest. Sorry but that is spin 101.

Agronomist,
By the companies justification the product can't be sold on the same basis as other grain (why?*too expensive*), so they're amortizing(?) their recouping over several "necessary" practices.
Or. Is as I posited, simply an example mega corp madness. (ref organizational theory, specifically corporate hierarchy of objectives [in practice]).

If the product is *so* good sell it as a stand alone. You and I know that it wouldn't sell (too expensive) or it wouldn't yield their mega profits or guarantee future cash cow profits. In short the corps don't want fair (equal) trade they're looking for an excuse to dominate via Market manipulation strategies.

You and I know that intellectual property rights time lengths have increased. Any bets before other mega corps like "Life Science companies" claim parity? My understanding is that they're already lobbying.

examinator, if you obtain some real information about farming practices you wouldn’t be spouting off these errors. GM crops are sold on the same basis as other grain with the exception that they are regulated by Governments. This Government regulation means that a few different things have to happen. The overwhelming majority of crop varieties, vegetables, fruit trees etc. in US, Canadian and Australian agriculture are protected by intellectual property protection. GM crops are the same.

“- Mandating use of their other products,”

The companies don’t mandate use of their products. The only herbicides that can be used on crops are ones that are registered by regulators. In Australia, GM cotton growers can use glyphosate from one of two companies, because that is all that is registered. They can and do use any other registered herbicide they please.

“- Yearly licensing on crops.”

Plant breeder’s rights allow yearly licensing of crops. This in fact is not an issue in many crops. In the US and Canada virtually all the corn is hybrid and growers have been buying new seed for more than 50 years. The vast majority of the canola is hybrid and new seed has to be bought every year. Soybeans are not hybrid, but the cost of storage and degradation of seed meant most farmers bought new seed each year.

“- The ramifications of being tied to their product...e.g. if a farmer goes back to non GM seed, the GM company can come in and if they find unintended GM by-product they can demand license fees.”

Totally untrue. The company could only demand license fees if it can show the GM was deliberately planted.

“- If it shows in the neighbour's crop same deal.”

Totally untrue. The company would need to show the neighbour had deliberately planted the crop.

“- Biota raiding in Botanical gardens to avoid national origin royalties.”

Haven’t heard of this happening.

‘If the product is *so* good sell it as a stand alone. You and I know that it wouldn't sell”

It seems that you know virtually nothing about soybean production in the US.