Students: If you choose to respond on this topic, please use a word processor to write, edit and finalize your thoughts, then use the "Comment" option to post your reflection. Your response should consist of complete sentences that flow from topic to topic in a logical way...start with a sentence that identifies what question you are responding to, then share your thoughts and use evidence from your life or the video to support your responses. Do NOT re-post the questions in your response.
The instructor will "moderate" your comment and post your reflection when all students have submitted their final responses.
Guiding Question Sets (from Food Inc Participant Guide)
- From Monsanto’s perspective, it is expensive to develop new seeds like these, and the seeds save farmers time and enable them to produce more soybeans. What might be the consequences—both positive and negative—of the company owning the genetic information in the seed?
- How does this situation compare to downloading music from “free” sites? How does it compare to the Microsoft monopoly case in which Microsoft was accused of having an unfair competitive advantage when it required consumers to buy both its Web browser and computer operating system together?
- Intellectual property can be defined as creations of the mind—such as music, art, writing, inventions, symbols, images, designs, or names—that have commercial value. In our country, these things are legally protected and cannot be sold or used without the permission of the owner. Do you think people should be able to own an idea? Why or why not?
- Saving seeds from each year’s crop is a tradition farmers have followed for thousands of years. Think of a tradition that has been in your family for a long time. What if you could no longer have this tradition because someone now legally claims it as theirs?
- Why might we care whether Monsanto or another company owns the DNA in seeds?
- Do you think it is fair that the one farmer had to settle (say he was guilty) because that was cheaper than trying to fight Monsanto’s lawsuit? Why or why not?
- The film includes an image of Lady Justice holding scales, with the side that is able to put the most money on the scales depicted as the winner. What do you think of that image?
Eric S. EDA P.2. Pelfrey (Part 1)
ReplyDeleteSaving farmers time in producing soybeans has both positive and negative effects. On the upside, farmers using Monsanto soybeans are likely to produce soybeans faster, causing them to need seed more frequently. This means more money for Monsanto. However, if seeds are saved by these same farmers, they will not need to purchase as many as often because they have a store of the seeds. If every farmer saved seeds, eventually he would get more and more saved per harvest, and that could mean a MAJOR loss of money for the Monsanto Company. Another negative effect is that when wind blows on a farm, pollen from that farm’s plants can go into their neighbors crops. If the pollen of the Roundup Ready Soybeans is blown into someone elses farm, they are basically getting these soybeans for free. This means more money lost for Monsanto.
This situation and “free” sites are very similar. In this situation, Monsanto spent time and energy developing these Roundup Ready Soybeans, whereas an artist spends a lot of time and energy making a song. Developing these special soybeans took a lot of money just as producing a song takes a lot of money. In the end, the artist has rights to his song. Why shouldn’t Monsanto have a right to their soybean? They worked equally hard, and spent a lot of money making it. People downloading music for free results in a loss of money for the artist. With Roundup Ready Soybeans, when seeds are saved, its like getting a portion of the next harvest for free, and that causes a loss of money for Monsanto. If Monsanto owns their beans, they are legally able to require that farmers do not save their seeds. If farmers do not like that, then the farmers can buy soybeans from other companies.
I think that in the Microsoft case, Microsoft was completely in the right. They made their Microsoft products, and it is their choice how they choose to bundle them for sale. As for having a competitive advantage, that’s just what business is. Companies try to get the upperhand to make more money than other companies. However, when Monsanto requires their farmers not to save seeds, they are not just trying to get the upper hand though. Monsanto is changing traditions that go back many generations, and farmers do not respond well to these new changes.
I absolutely believe people have a right to own ideas of their creation. It is a right to get the benifits for something created by yourself, and not to have it stolen from you. Lets say a rapper, DJ Supa Fresh, has a hit song. It is on the billboard top 100 charts, but he isn't able to protect his song. DJ Supa Fresh’s song could be copied and used by a different rapper. Even though DJ Supa Fresh wrote the song, someone else would be able to take credit for his song, and get the royalties that come along with it. If he had been able to put a patent or copyright on his song, when the other rapper did a version of the song without permission, he could sue. If the other rapper wanted to do a version and talked to DJ Supa Fresh then he could pay him to do a cover.
Eric S. EDA P.2. Pelfrey (Part 2)
ReplyDeleteCompanies should not be able to own things (like the soybean), and change farming traditions this drastically. If Monsanto had a patent on their soybean, but enabled farmers still to save their seed, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. However, traditions that go as far back as farming should not be able to be owned. Farmers should have a right to farm whatever way is most efficient, and saving seeds helps them farm more efficiently.
If the people allow Monsanto to own the DNA of these soybean seeds, things could get out of control. Other companies could start putting patents on other crops. A main concern would be corn. Corn is used in so many products, if a patent is put on corn, the outcome will be a lot worse than that of the outcome of the Monsanto/Soybean debate. Also, companies may not stop at crops. Even though it is a stretch, companies could try to patent farm animals like the cow, the pig, and the chicken. This would further complicate things.
The fact that the farmer had to settle because he couldn’t afford fighting the lawsuit is terrible. If the farmer truly was not guilty, he should not have to say he is. Monsanto has the upperhand in any court case against a farmer because their company is worth millions, so they're going to have many good lawyers. If farmers aren’t guilty, but cannot afford to fight, they should be able to.
I think, in America, that really is the case in a court of law. Whoever is financially able to get a greater amount of better lawyers generally will win lawsuits. In the suits against Monsanto, all the farmers except for one (I believe) said that they were forced to settle and pay Monsanto’s fine because of financial troubles. If all of these farmers had the money that Monsanto has in lawyers, I believe the outcome of many of these cases would have favored the farmers. Not Monsanto.
Andrew J. EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteA multitude of consequences spring from the fact that Monsanto owns the genetic material in its soybeans. On the plus side, production is streamlined, maximizing the production rate, and the cost of food is driven down. However, the farmer is completely reliant on the seed supply company. Also, since neither companies nor farmers can control where the genetic information goes (in pollen) legal issues arise; “Why are my beans growing in your field?” In the past it didn’t matter whose pollen pollinated whose crops; now farmers can be sued if their crops have patented DNA not belonging to them.
Using the engineered seed without paying is like downloading a song without paying because the seed and the song are both considered intellectual property that can’t really be controlled. Pollen spreads DNA, and songs, names etc. can be sung/used by anyone. I think people should be able to own things like songs, inventions, and names, because people create them with their own creativity, and using them without giving credit to the creator would be copying (i.e. bad). However, I do not think engineered DNA should be included. If a corporation owns the seeds, then a farmer doesn’t, and it should really be the farmers who own the seeds, since they work them. They should be able to sell the product of their labor, rather than simply produce product and be paid by a corporation. The corporation is expanding into areas that should be beyond its reach; it should stick to the financial world, and let the farmers maintain their independence if they wish to maintain it.
A long time tradition in our family is playing Bingo every Christmas Eve. If we were told we could no longer legally continue with this tradition (perhaps because the uncooked beans we use as markers are a choking hazard), we would probably go on playing it anyway. It is a tradition; it is the way it has been for a very long time, and no one has any business changing it now. There is nothing inherently wrong with the tradition of seed saving, but now that it stands in the way of some extra profit for Monsanto, it and the farmers who carry on the tradition are being legally attacked.
We might care if Monsanto or another company owns the DNA in seeds, because then they control the price, and if they have a near monopoly, then we would have to buy from them, no matter how outrageously expensive they make their product. Also, if they own the DNA, they could legally engineer the DNA to their advantage, perhaps make it so it kills off non-Monsanto soybeans.
It is extremely unfair that the farmer in the video had to settle because it was cheaper. There is a constitutional right to a fair trial (6th Amendment!), and that includes a right to a lawyer without charge if need be. And he wasn't guilty, so he shouldn't have to confess. I think the image of piling money on the scales of justice is sadly true. Everything of value (i.e. evidence, experts, help, etc.) costs money in this world. Money can do just about anything, even make false claims into fact.
Nicholas P EDA #1 Pelfrey Topic #7 From seed to the supermarket Part 1
ReplyDeleteCompanies owning the genetic information within seed could have both positive and negative effects for the farmers and the companies. For example if a company owns a genetic coded seed and a farmer where to have some of that seed blow onto his land without knowing and he were to save seed he would be committing a crime that was not purposely intended but would still be sued by the company to set an example. This could also be bad for the company because there is so much money being put into this natural occurrence that was nobody's fault. But some of the positive things of the genetic coded seed is that you could have any type of crop in any season you would want which saves everyone time and money. plus if you could get a seed that is grown in any type of season you have less of a chance of the crop withering in the summer but keep it from freezing in the winter.
This situation could be compared to downloading music from a free site because its never truly free. For example you could download the newest song from iTunes that would cost you ten dollars or you could download it from a free site that has pirated it and has probably given it a virus. This is the same with the genetic seed because when you buy it you buy it like if you were buying it from iTunes but if you were to save the genetic seed you have downloaded the virus the company with their lawyers. But if you were to have a seed that wasn't genetically made it’s like you downloaded it from iTunes half the original price because if its not grown with genetic seed you can save half the seed for you next crop without the companies and their lawyers coming to sue you.
this compares to Microsoft's monopoly case where instead of you having to buy the web browser and the computer operating system you have to buy the seed then sign the contract that says you can't save seed. so in this case when you buy the seed one year you are going to buy seed the next year because their patented genetic code seed.
Nicholas P EDA #1 Pelfrey Topic #7 From seed to the supermarket Part 2
ReplyDeleteI don't think think people should be able to own an idea because its an idea that's been used time and time again more than likely by more than the one who made it. For example i had a wood shop teacher last year who made a guard for his sander so people wouldn't get their fingers get ripped off so he made a guard that is almost exactly like the ones they use today but he made it before the company panted it.this is just one of many examples why people should not be able to own an idea like this because it could save someones life.
’
If I could no longer no longer follow a family tradition because someone legally owned it now my family and me wouldn't be able to do anything about It. This would be to bad but some things you can keep and other things you must let go. Finally if there was a family tradition taken from my family we probably wouldn't be the only people with that tradition so there could someday be a chance at regaining that family tradition but it would otherwise seem unlikely.
we would care because they could patent it and because they can make genetically engineered seed it could be made in any season eventually diving all the other seed companies out of business along with their old from the earth seed that anyone can own without penalty. this would lead to a problem because the companies would probably wait until the other seed companies to go out of business to go out of business before revealing the patent so they seem trustworthy so they could own and make money every season from the same people buying seed and suing people saving their seed.
I don't think it was fair that a farmer had to settle because he couldn't pay his legal bills. But the farmer should have known that you can't fight the companies we the people have made them too powerful and it is use that will face the consequences. Also here is the plain and simple fact in all of this life's not fair we are just here to live, grow old, and die.
’
I thought that the image represented that lady justice is blind of the injustices in her court rooms and is being weighed down by the burden and corruption from these genetically growing companies. Also i think that it is representing who has more power we the people or the corruption of capitalism.Finally i believe that in all that not even the influence and justice of lady justice can be true to the justice system when it comes to these companies.
Aidan O. EDA #3 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteIf a company owns the genetic material in a seed then they will be making money off of the seed and could use that money to fund research for more, better seeds. If you can't make money off of a seeds genetics then less people would be encouraged to try and create better seeds. but one bad thing is that farmers are going to lose more money because they will have to buy new seeds every year, or season.
When you download music from a website you are depriving that artist or creator from there compensation that they deserve, and when you reuse seeds you are taking the creators compensation away. microsoft was basically taking the competition away and so is monsanto.
I do not think people should be able to own an idea because if you have an idea for say i flying car but are not able to create the actual car then the idea is useless. i think that the person who actually creates or fulfills the idea then they deserve the credit and rights.
a tradition my family has is a amazing icing recipe that my mom makes, and it would be horrible if someone took that recipe from us. but saving seeds is not a tradition it was just a way farmers reused seeds and you can still do it today but just not with monsanto's seeds.
’
if monsanto or another company owns the rights to a seed then the company is monopolizing the farm industry.
no because if you can't afford to fight for your rights then you have no right which would be going against the constitution
i think the image depicts the majority of our justice system very well because whoever has the most money, friends, or supporters is going to win in a court of law.
Mitchell, C, Period 5, Pelfrey, Part 1
ReplyDeleteThere are the people who support this law, but I am not one of those people. It is true though, that it may save farmers time and money but it can have major consequences. It’s also kind of cool how it is resistant to a kind of pesticide. I mostly only see the negative parts of this law because I strongly don’t think that you should have the right to own genes in a plant. In the article, it says that Monsanto actually sued people for saving their seeds. This is why i don’t like this law. Since so many of the crops now have that gene, some farmers crops could be contaminated with it and they could eventually be sued. Since Monsanto owns that gene, that basically means they control the soybean. This can be very bad for some farmers.
This does compare to downloading music from “free” sites because of copyright issues. For example, lets say I were to download pirated music from some random site. There would most likely be a ton of copyright issues with that because well, it’s illegal. This is how I feel about these modified soybeans. In fact, its about the same as downloading questionable music. With the soybeans, Monsanto owns the patent on the genes of the bean. So if you don’t have some sort of legal grant, you will most likely get in big troble with the law.
This is one of my biggest problems with this product. Monsanto has the huge unfair advantages over society because of the gene they own. I would imagine that you need to have some sort of 2,000 page document signed to be able to plant these corrupted seeds. I would also think that you would need to pay tones of fines and bills over a long period of time. This is probably not cheap either.
I do think that people should have the right to own ideas that may please society, not make them pay money for it when they don’t want to. Owning things like inventions can be good and bad. For example, you should be able to own an invention you created and use it for the benefits of others. Monsanto owns an invention that doesn’t benefit some people (farmers) because they probably will get sued. To me owning artwork, designs, and images is different because unlike Monsanto, it can’t contaminate other peoples crops and get them sued.
Mitchell, C, period 5, Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteI would be pretty mad because why should they get to own a tradition that runs through many peoples families for thousands of years? It’s like they don’t really care about the people. Saving seeds is a really good idea because you can plant next years crop almost for free. Since Monsanto prohibits the planting of their soybeans, farmers can’t save a lot of money to plant next years crop to feed their crop to their families.
I personally “care” about them owning the DNA because it’s really bad idea to own the DNA of a plant because it runs other surrounding crops to the risk of contamination. After it is contaminated, it can contaminate their whole crop and then they can get into legal trouble. Some people think that this is beneficial to the crops. Some people don’t care about them owning the DNA because, in a sense, it is beneficial with it’s resistance to a certain pesticide, which means that they don’t have to worry about hurting their crops. But that is not a good enough reason to convince me to like their decision to own the soybean DNA.
I think it wasn’t fair that he had to settle because he can’t afford to fight them. I bet that if he had the money to fight them, he probably would win. Although, i would choose to fight them if I had the money. If i was in this farmers position, I would settle because if you lost that battle, you would probably lose thousands. That would most likely affect their whole families because then they might not be able to feed their children or do other things that are critical to the well being of a person.
To me, I think that image means that the people who are able to afford to fight against Monsanto won. In the film, a farmer wasn’t able to fight against Monsanto because it would be easier to pay the fine than to fight them. I would imagine that it may be thousands of dollars to take them to trial.
Fidelity B. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart One
There are many positive and negative factors to take into account when looking at companies owning the DNA in seeds. First, analyze the positives. Genetically Modified Organisms (often referred to as GMOs) allow for a larger crop to be produced by the farmer. Additionally, they help with feeding the world’s poor and increasing nutrition. According to the UN, about 1.5 billion people currently are living in poverty on just $1.25 to $2 dollars a day. With these atrocious numbers, it is a definitely a huge positive that Monsanto can reduce world poverty by owning the genetic information in the seed and producing food quickly and efficiently. However, there are some equally important negative factors that should be analyzed also. In 1985, the US government allowed companies to own the patents to genetically modified foods. Since then, Monsanto has the ability to sue farmers for “saving seed”. This means that if the seed spreads through insects or pollination, that farmer still can have legal repercussions. According to the GMO Compass, over 309 million acres of GMO foods were planted worldwide. With this large amount, it’s easy for the seed to spread and for farmers to get in lawsuits they cannot afford. It is also under speculation that GMO foods might not be healthy. A loss of biodiversity, antibiotic resistance, and human health problems are also being analyzed, as GMO’s have only safely been used since 1996. Studies are currently being undergone to understand the impact of GMO’s on human health and safety. For example, a study by Food and Chemical Toxicology showed a link to GMO corn and severe tumors in rats. Even though the impacts still are being weighed, there are some obvious benefits and detriments to large companies owning genetic information.
Downloading music from “free” sites is a violation of current patent laws that block the stealing of someone else’s intellectual property. Those who make the music have the option (and most artists do so) to place a copyright on it. By downloading the music for free, you are receiving that person’s intellectual property without having to pay for it. This relates to saving seed because the farmer receives the seed for free, without having to pay for it. Since the seed was developed by Monsanto, they claim they own it as their own intellectual property and should receive compensation for farmers using it. However, the two differ in one major way: intent.The farmers who do save seed and receive the GMO do not control pollination or the wind. However, illegal downloaders know exactly what they are doing and continue to do so.
When Microsoft sold their Web browser and computer operating system together, it did give them an unfair advantage. These two popular and needed items could only be obtained together, so Microsoft easily had gained a monopoly on the computer business. You had to buy the web browser and the OS together, so they gained more money. This relates to the current situation because Monsanto currently sells their GMO soybeans with the Round-Up pesticide. These two products work together, because the soybeans are resistant to the pesticide. The Round-Up will kill all other weeds and bugs, but leave the soybeans perfectly untouched. Having these items sold only together makes Monsanto the most popular company, because the seeds are an absolute necessity for most farmers to buy, so Monsanto gains money by also selling the Round-Up. Other small seed companies cannot expect to compete with the large Monsanto market.
Fidelity B. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart Two
When Microsoft sold their Web browser and computer operating system together, it did give them an unfair advantage. These two popular and needed items could only be obtained together, so Microsoft easily had gained a monopoly on the computer business. You had to buy the web browser and the OS together, so they gained more money. This relates to the current situation because Monsanto currently sells their GMO soybeans with the Round-Up pesticide. These two products work together, because the soybeans are resistant to the pesticide. The Round-Up will kill all other weeds and bugs, but leave the soybeans perfectly untouched. Having these items sold only together makes Monsanto the most popular company, because the seeds are an absolute necessity for most farmers to buy, so Monsanto gains money by also selling the Round-Up. Other small seed companies cannot expect to compete with the large Monsanto market.
I think people should be able to own an idea, but to certain limits. Ideas are created to be shared, built off of other ideas, and eventually modified. This being said, an idea that you personally come up with is your property. For example, millions of essays and articles are on the internet. Plagirism is a huge problem today in schools, as kids copy someone else’s work. That’s why I believe that there should be boundaries. Students can cite the work of an article or an essay in their own work, letting them build off of the idea. This being said, ideas are created to be attacked, changed, and wondered about, not just copied. In relation to this topic, I don’t think life is an idea that Monsanto came up with. They did come up with the GMO, but this “intellectual property” is a lifeform and out of their control.
One tradition that has been in my family for a long time is saving a piece of our Christmas tree each year. Sometimes it’s the bottom of the trunk, and sometimes it is a piece of the tree. It would be a loss to our family traditions if we could no longer do this, and take away that fundamental right. It would be a very sad thing to have to end this family tradition because someone else claimed ownership over the DNA in the tree. However, if we look at the other point of view, we can see that some other things might have a greater impact on humans. Should we value stopping world poverty and hunger over family traditions? I believe so, because family traditions really don’t have that much impact over how we function and live in the big picture. Poverty and hunger has a much greater impact.
We might care because it has serious benefits and detriments to us. Large companies owning DNA in seeds is setting the precedent that life can be bought. Looking at the current issues of today, we can see that GMOs are becoming a serious question of health and safety, as well as fairness for the farmer. The average American should care about GMOs because they are currently being tested to see how they affect human health. Since we don’t know that they are absolutely 100% safe, humans should we wary about them. Monsanto owning the DNA allows for the quick and easy production of these GMOs that could propose serious health problems. Additionally, we have to look at the positives. We can see that because of GMOs owned by Monsanto, the world hunger rate is decreased.
Fidelity B. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart Three
No, I don’t think this was an okay decision. The criminal justice system shouldn’t be based off of how much money you have, but creating a fair decision. However, we didn’t hear this farmer’s exact story about the Monstanto case. Their might be a different perspective to look at here, because we didn’t hear everything that happened. The way Food Inc. has shown what occurs makes us infer that the farmer received the GMO seed based off of things he didn’t control. However, he might of actually been purposefully saving seed to illegally gain the GMO. Settling might of been the best option for the farmer, because he actually was guilty! Although we don’t know the exact details of the story, I think that the justice system should never be based off of who has more money. It not only gives others a fundamental advantage, but it goes against the basic creed of America.
I definitely don’t think this was fair. The criminal justice system could be becoming corrupt. Lady Justice should always decide based on who was actually correct in the situation. What if there was a murderer who didn’t have to go to jail just because he was rich, or any other serious criminal? It should never be based off of who has more money, but who actually was right in the case. The actions Monsanto is taking aren't fair towards the average farmer in America, because they not only aren't doing anything wrong, but can’t protect themselves. Monsanto needs to make some changes in how they go about their business practices, and we need to honestly consider stepping back and rethinking how we decide what is fair in our criminal justice system.
Brandon L. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteThere are positive and negative effects of owning the patent on seeds. **People who believe that allowing a company to own the patents because, they believe that a company has the right to patent material they spent money and resources developing. They might point out that if companies are unable to protect these patents and other forms of intellectual property, future innovations that could benefit the world will be thwarted. *And then there are the people who oppose it, because, they believe that genetic material is not the same as intellectual property and patenting seeds gives companies too much power over something vital for everyone. Also most of commercial seed is owned by a handful of biotech companies.
’ *Well from my point of view, downloading music for free isn’t the same as saving seeds. You never payed for the music and the artist put work into it however, the farmers paid for the seeds. The farmers bought the seeds and aren’t making more, they are just saving their property. Monsanto may have engineered the seeds but they did sell them to the farmer so they deserve the right to save the seeds. With the logic of not being able to save seeds, you shouldn’t be able to save music onto your computer or ipod. Farmers should be able to save the seeds. *From the other point of view, downloading music illegally is the same as saving seeds because that is the company’s intellectual property and the patent should be respected.
’*From my point of view, it is the same in the aspect that it requires you to do something but the Monsanto monopoly case is far worse. It’s far worse because Monsanto owns soy so nobody can ever own their own soybeans. They also own corn, the two of them are major ingredients in almost all of our food. I think giving Monsanto so much power over our food supply is a horrible idea. **It isn’t the same because Monsanto has legal rights over the seeds it has manufactured. There isn’t any problem with that because they have those rights given to them and they may do what they wish with what they produce.
’ * I don’t think the seeds that Monsanto has produced should be compared to creations of the mind because the seeds are still living and a major resource of the country that we use in almost everything. If we gave them the right to treat our food supply like creations of the mind then we will have given them the right to regulate our food supply and everything. ** Monsanto does have rights to intellectual property on the seeds, same as other creations of the mind.
I would argue that it can’t legally claimed because i have been doing the tradition and they can’t take it. However, I don’t feel that my traditions are the same because they aren't very old and the saving seeds tradition has been around for thousands of years. I feel that the farmers can do what they want with the seeds they bought. My traditions aren't as important as the farmer traditions that i don’t think should be broken.
*=My opinion
**=Other opinion
Mitchell C. EDA Period 5 Caldwell
ReplyDeleteTopic 7 From seed to supermarket
http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/seed-saving-and-legal-activities.aspx By Monsanto This article is about the legal rights of saving Monsanto soybean seeds.
http://www.naturalnews.com/037589_monsanto_saving_seeds_farmers.html By Nature News This article is about a farmer who’s crop was contaminated by the monsanto seeds.
http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-tries-to-criminalize-saving-seeds-drags-farmer-into-court/ By Summer Tierney This article is about Monsanto Trying to outlaw saving their seeds.
Travis B EDA 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteFrom what i read i believe that there are some pluses and minuses to a company being able to own genetic information in a seed. The biggest plus i would have to say would be the ability to create crops that can survive harsher conditions and produce more of the crop and that this can be protected so that all the company has to think about is bettering the product for the world. however, there are some minuses. for instance, if someone is saving their seed, which every farmer has a right to for cost efficient reasons , they might be penalized by the company which can sue for copyright infringement, which they also have a right to do since it is patented.
I personally think that music websites have nothing to do with crop patenting but i can sort of see a similarity in which buying a song for free which was supposed to be sold for a dollar is illegal same with keeping crops and not renewing your seeds every season. Either way it’s a crime to get stuff illegally without consent of the owner of the patent, but i find it stupid that just saving your seeds can right you off as a criminal. And no, i am not being blunt about it because it’s true. Making farmers, who work hard and produce good from it, look like criminals is unfair to them and us because with money saving techniques, like saving your seed, farmers are able to produce more for less.
I think it compares greatly to Microsoft's monopoly over other similar businesses and it’s consumers. Because, microsoft would force you to buy both their web browser and their computer operating system together and monsanto would require you to buy new seed every season. By making consumers purchase your product annually or by enforcing the purchase of one product with another you are secured financially but your customers won’t necessarily enjoy the service unless the product is superior to the competition. However, with a patent in place your product is untouchable, so that means the consumer will have to come back to you in order for their business to strive. It’s a simple loop that keeps monsanto at the top of the pyramid when it comes to soy beans.
I do not believe in the idea of owning an idea on the simple bases that you were not the first to think of the idea. People have been dreaming for thousands of years and who knows all the ideas that these people have had in their dreams. We rely on the out going to but these dreams into motion. For instance, no one really knows who invented the chocolate used in a tootsie roll but they do know that hershey patented the idea when he found a recipe. Long story short and maybe something to think about is, however wild your idea is it has already been thought of, whether in this world or in the vast corners of the universe. The brain is an instrument and plays beautiful music when used right so that is why i don’t believe in owning an idea because that is like owning a note to a song.
Travis B EDA 5 Pelfrey prt 2
ReplyDeleteOne tradition my family and my friends family share is to go to Palm Springs Labor Day weekend. There we usually stay at the Hyatt Grand Champion and go to the Knots Soak City water park. If someone was to claim that that venue was theirs i would not be mad, only sad about how us as humans have retreated to our self absorbed roots. Humans have shown hostilities to each other throughout our existence and nothing but war and discrimination has come out of this form of socializing. The only to get more technological, intelligent, and to socially progress is to work with other humans and even the very place we inhabit (Earth.) The world is full of mysteries that have yet to be discovered and the more we have to worry about others the longer it is going to take to get a full understanding of ourselves and our planet. Kind of off topic but regardless if you think you are free because your government says so, you're not. Government were put in place in order to keep order and to fuel power hungry individuals. Government was created to follow religious codes and to enforce said religious rules. God is real and we need to acknowledge that there is a superior being who created not only us but the endless pockets of the universe but we need to eliminate all the punishments of going against a religion. Governments now have a job to reassure us that everything is alright, but they like to hide a lot of things from us. If they’re scared to tell us something then they are incredibly incompetent, because humans are known to adapt to situations, regardless if it is imminent war or a governmental collapse. We have the right to know and the right to act.
One main reason we should care is what exactly are they putting in these seeds and is it alright for consumption. The sad fact is that we can no longer trust big corporations anymore because of their ability to deny access to information. This secretive stuff really annoys me and reminds me of children who refuse to show what’s in his or her pocket to their mother. Us as individuals must realize that keeping secrets from us is going to only make outbreaks more common and not help their business at all. After all, we have a right to know what we are eating! Right?
The fact that a person or persons were told to plead guilty just because it would be too expensive to fight something they believe to be wrong reminds me of 1984 by George Orwell, which has a part where convicted criminals of thought crime are forced to plead guilty or they will be exterminated. The scariest part is that they are tortured into believing in the “Parties” cause, which, if the farmers sucker up to the big companies they are losing their freedom, thus losing the battle with the big companies and themselves.
Travis B EDA 5 Pelfrey Part 2
I think it is absolutely true! In this society the person with the most money is the happiest. In this case the person with the most money wins the verdict in their favor. Sad to think that this happens, but like i said before our society hasn’t adapted much from their greedy/power hungry roots.
Isabella B. EDA Period 5. Ms. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/ This article explains what GMO’s are and explores their effect on consumers and farmers.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038792_GMO_toxicity_digestion_cancer.html This article explains the negative effects of GMO’s.
http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto-gmos/ This article is about how GMOs were banned in Peru.
Isabella B. EDA Period 5. Ms. Pelfrey.
ReplyDeletePositive effects of the company owning seeds would include; Faster, more efficient production of food. Negative effects would include; The farmers would be unable to save seed, costing them more money, time, and effort. Other companies might start trying to copyright/own food, and eventually only big industries would own all of the food. Monsanto owning almost 90% of soybeans is unfair, because it’s difficult for farmers to find soybeans that are NOT owned by Monsanto. Small business/farmers get ran out of business by Monsanto. Cross-contamination is another issue; their seeds could get infected by the Monsanto soybeans, even if they did not intend for it to happen.
This situation compares to downloading music from “free sites” in quite a few ways. There are positive aspects and negative aspects; the negative aspects are that you’re stealing from a company, and you could possibly get into trouble. The positive aspects are that you don’t have to spend so much money on music. Also, you can get in legal trouble for downloading music from “free sites”, just as you can get in trouble for using seed from Monsanto without permission.
I think that people should be able to own ideas such as the art, music, writing, inventions, or designs that they created. As for owning genetic material or food, I think that should be illegal. Owning food(or genetic material) arouses way too many problems for it to be worth it.
I would be angry that a random person could legally claim MY FAMILY’S tradition. Of course, my family doesn't have too many traditions, but I would still be angry. It seems unfair(in my case and in the case of the farmers) for an outsider to trademark the traditions of another.
We might care whether Monsanto or another company owns the DNA in seeds because another company(a more farmer-friendly company) might be more fair with their control over the seed. Unlike Monsanto, they might allow farmers to save seeds. They also might not go to such extreme lengths to falsely persecute farmers whose seed were accidentally contaminated by the GMO seeds.
I think it was unfair that the farmer had to settle because that was cheaper than trying to fight Monsanto’s lawsuit. How could any small farmer or business have the money to face a huge company like monsanto? Monsanto has so much money that they can practically get away with whatever they want to; just look at how they wrongly accused the farmer of using their seeds, yet the farmer was the one who had to settle.
I think that the image is depicting the truth. With the way our justice system works(especially in the case of a lawsuit), whoever has more money has the advantage. If you don’t have enough money to hire good lawyers to defend you in court against a lawsuit, you’re going to lose. If you have a lot of money, you can hire a good lawyer to work relentlessly so that you’ll win the case. Whoever spends the most money wins, it seems. It’s an unfortunate thing, but our justice system is flawed in that matter.