[doosra]

Help me understand the business model of GM crops: Does Monsanto create GM crops that are seedless? I think this is evil since it gives too much power to one corporation and removes the farmer's prerogative. On the other hand, how will Monsanto make money after the first crop cycle?

[karzeem]

When you buy seeds, they require you to agree not to use seeds from the resultant plants in the next crop cycle. So if you want to use the seeds again in the next cycle, you have to buy more. They have people who go to farms and test plants to ensure compliance.

Vanity Fair ran a good piece on this last year: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...

[jdbeast00]

also, if you inadvertently obtain seeds (like, if your neighbor has Monsanto wheat and his grains blow into your fields) you have to kill your crop or pay Monsanto. reminds me of the RIAA's business model.

[RK]

They do a couple things (that I know of).

1. Sell seeds that will produce plants that don't reproduce, thus requiring the farmers to buy new seeds each year.

2. Sell stock that is resistant to their herbicide, so they make money on the seed and the herbicide (Roundup).

[anamax]

> I think this is evil since it gives too much power to one corporation and removes the farmer's prerogative.

The farmer can't reuse diesel that he burned this year - is that evil?

The farmer is free to buy seed elsewhere.

[michael_dorfman]

I don't think the diesel analogy is appropriate, since setting aside a portion of the crop as next year's seed-crop has been an integral part of farming for about 10,000 years.

I'd say it's more akin to buying a book that renders itself illegible after you've read it once. I'm not going to call it "evil", bit it would certainly be outside of the normal expectations of most consumers.

[evgen]

> I don't think the diesel analogy is appropriate, since setting aside a portion of the crop as next year's seed-crop has been an integral part of farming for about 10,000 years.

I hate to break it to you, but this practice has not been an integral part of farming in this country for the past 50 years or so. Farmers do not set aside seeds for planting unless they intend on breeding these seeds themselves to create a new variant, which they can then patent and sell to other farmers. If you were to ever drive through farm country you would see the fields near the road plastered with little signs on metal posts advertising the company whose seeds are planted in that field or row (DeKalb, Pioneer, etc.) For starters, the hybridized seeds which are the most popular due to their high yield and resistance to disease will generally not "breed true" and so the resulting seed will lose the genetic benefits of its parent.

Farmers buy seeds from specialists, just like you buy your food from specialists at growing and distributing it.

[anamax]

> I'd say it's more akin to buying a book that renders itself illegible after you've read it once.

As somone else pointed out, modern seed hasn't "bred true" since hybrids came out, which happened decades ago.

So, I'll point out that the seed containers have LABELS that say "seeds that you collect won't germinate".

In other words, the whole "this is bad" argument depends on significantly misunderstanding farming and the assumption that farmers can't read or don't understand what they read simple statements about seed viability.

Note that viability is one of the considerations that goes into seed choice, so that assumption requires significant gymnastics.

[anamax]

> setting aside a portion of the crop as next year's seed-crop has been an integral part of farming for about 10,000 years

If it's so integral, why are they buying seed?