
Corn Wars - GabrielF00
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122441/corn-wars
======
jerf
I am reminded of a comment made about the Melissa virus [1]:

    
    
        While the Melissa license is a bit unclear, Melissa aggressively
        encourages free distribution of its source code.
    

While the license on genes is a bit unclear, they aggressively encourage free
distribution of their source code. How are we going to prevent the Chinese
from standing downwind of a farm plot and catching pollen for analysis? (I say
"Chinese" only because that's what the story happens to be about... it applies
to anyone, of course.) Or sequencing them through mundane means in the US and
transmitting the gene code back to China?

Physically preventing people from "stealing" your genes is impossible in the
long term. Only legal protection can work, and that is probably questionable
in the long term too.

[1]: [https://lists.debian.org/debian-
devel/1999/04/msg00292.html](https://lists.debian.org/debian-
devel/1999/04/msg00292.html)

~~~
ethbro
(This comment is going to get me so much hate, but match to kindling...)

Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta et al. are easy boogeymen. So are
pharmaceutical companies.

I mean, they're just like the *AA, trying to create artificial scarcity
through draconian IP laws, no?

No.

You may argue about compensation, and whether they're using unfair market
tactics or taking an excessive share of the profits created by their products.
But when you boil it down, these companies are burning incredible amounts of
money (and talent) to fuel R&D engines that are literally keeping humans
alive.

Look at Monsanto's research pipeline:

[http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/research-
development-...](http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/research-development-
pipeline.aspx)

[http://www.monsanto.com/investors/documents/2015/2015.01.07_...](http://www.monsanto.com/investors/documents/2015/2015.01.07_mon-q1f15-rd-
update-presentation.pdf)

Those profits aren't just being pissed into the wind. These are extremely
competitive industries, doing cutting edge science, with the goal of feeding
and/or healing humans. How downright evil of them.

I'm probably just as suspicious about GMOs as the next guy, but I've yet to
hear any of the anti-GMO / anti-Big-Ag crowd propose a feasible solution for
how we're going to keep pace with a ballooning world population. Farm to table
or heritage variants don't feed the world. And it's just not cheap to (a) make
something useful & (b) make sure it doesn't kill anyone.

If you think Big Ag is a problem, try imagining what a world with steadily
declining food security looks like in terms of stability.

End result? Yes, protecting the golden goose so that it can keep laying eggs
merits some extraordinary protections. Although, like everything else, I'm
perfectly willing to debate on whether those are not-enough, just-right, or
too-far. But I don't see how "none" gives us a very nice future.

~~~
rayiner
> These are extremely competitive industries, doing cutting edge science, with
> the goal of feeding and/or healing humans. How downright evil of them.

There's this idea that certain classes of activity are "too important" for
profit-motive to be allowed. Education, healthcare, science, and agriculture
usually fall in the line of fire. These people cheer on the companies that
make their money in advertising or solving first world problems and demonize
those that work on the capital-intensive problems in healthcare, science, or
agriculture. Then they loudly complain about how the best of the best are
going into the wrong lines of work. It's bonkers.

Moral tale: my brother was at the top of his class at an Ivy-league school and
got his degree in physics. He did lab research on nanotechnology since high
school. He seriously considered getting his PhD in physics. I counseled him to
go to Wall Street instead, which he did. Now he makes a bunch of money and
couldn't be happier.

What's my point? Getting a PhD in a hard science should be a license to print
money like going into advertising or finance. Until that's true, you're not
going to get the allocation of social resources you want. And government
research isn't a solution to that. You'll never make a bunch of money working
for the government. And if e.g. the government lets people keep the patents on
research that's initially publicly-funded, so they can make a bunch of money
on the endeavor, then the aforementioned people will demonize that as evil.

~~~
tomp
It's not that they are "too important" for profit, it's that the supply and
demand laws are such that a free market is very hard to establish.

Taking healthcare for example, the incentives of the buyers (patients) and
sellers (doctors) are inherently conflicting, as the former seek health, while
the latter benefit when the former are sick. Furthermore, the patients very
often urgently need help and don't have the time (nor the knowledge) to "shop
around".

Or education. The "value" of a college is the increase in lifetime income vs.
a high-school education, but given the slow feedback cycle (30 years or so of
working) the market equilibrium is trending towards the price of college being
the discounted value of all discretionary income of the graduates. This is
aided by the US government that guarantees the loans and prevents them being
discharged in bankruptcy.

A similar field is also infrastructure.

None of these fields _must_ inherently be constrained by the government, but
they need to be regulated in such a way that a free competition is encouraged.

~~~
rayiner
> Taking healthcare for example, the incentives of the buyers (patients) and
> sellers (doctors) are inherently conflicting, as the former seek health,
> while the latter benefit when the former are sick.

That's trivially true of almost every market. People want food but restaurants
benefit when the former are hungry!

~~~
gress
That ignores the issue - being hungry is a basic need and it's ok that we keep
getting hungry and meeting that need through restaurants.

People getting sick is not a basic need unless you are a healthcare company.
That's why the incentives are conflicting.

~~~
rayiner
Getting hungry happens naturally, so does getting sick. Restaurants and
healthcare companies are needed to address each need. The incentives are the
same.

~~~
gress
Absolutely false.

Getting hungry again happens naturally regardless of the choice of food
offered by a restaurant.

Whether you remain sick, are cured, or get sick again depends significantly on
the choice of treatment offered. Healthcare companies have an incentive to
choose treatments that don't cure you.

------
dangerlibrary
Is there a term for regulatory capture of bodies that aren't really
regulatory? This seems a lot like the result of elected folks leaning on the
FBI/DOJ about issues that are important to campaign donors.

The extreme measures being taken to try to stop something that is impossible
to prevent feels like a stunt, like posturing. As the article mentions, the
genetic information is available to anyone driving down a road in Iowa or
Illinois. The intellectual property paranoia focused on seed engineering
companies feels very similar to the domestic patent legislation/litigation
discussions of the past decade or so.

~~~
rayiner
Calling this "regulatory capture" eviscerates the meaning of the term.
Enforcing laws important to rich corporations/people? Yeah, but that's the
history of the world.

And here, its a no-brainer for the DOJ/FBI to go after this. It does
Americans, not the rich or the poor not anyone, any good if the Chinese can
use the fruits of our agricultural R&D for free.

The fact that it's easy to violate the patent rights of these agricultural
companies is neither here nor there. I can drive over to Ted Turner's land in
Montana and pitch a tent, and it'd probably be weeks before anybody noticed.
But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to eject trespassers from his
land.

Ultimately, the U.S. has to ask itself a very hard question re: China. Do we
want to be in a race to the bottom with them, or do we want to use whatever
competitive advantages we have? The Chinese can grow corn as easily as we can.
They can't genetically engineer corn like we do, unless they copy our
technology. In the long run they'll get the technology--it's inevitable. But
its in our self-interest to put that off as long as possible.

~~~
stephengillie
> _It does Americans, not the rich or the poor not anyone, any good if the
> Chinese can use the fruits of our agricultural R &D for free._

It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of
the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this
claim.

> _I can drive over to Ted Turner 's land in Montana and pitch a tent, and
> it'd probably be weeks before anybody noticed. But that doesn't mean he
> doesn't have a right to eject trespassers from his land._

We do have Squatter's Rights, but those usually take most of a decade to kick
in. Do you think the laws around GM should have longer statutes of
limitations?

> _The Chinese can grow corn as easily as we can._

They have more of all of the same resources as we do - land, raw genetic
material (crops), smart people, research facilities. But they apparently can't
innovate. Why not? We should look to protect our innovative abilities, more
than we protect their products.

~~~
rayiner
> It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of
> the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this
> claim.

The DOJ and FBI don't exist for the benefit of humanity. The American
government is (and should be) solely concerned with advancing the welfare of
Americans. Anything else would be an egregious violation of the social
contract.

> We should look to protect our innovative abilities, more than we protect
> their products.

It's inevitable that China will develop the same ability to innovate as us.
R&D success is ultimately a function of money and time. But in the meantime,
they don't need to develop or ability to innovate if they can simply copy the
results of our innovative process as we make them.

~~~
sampo
> _The American government is (and should be) solely concerned with advancing
> the welfare of Americans._

Opinions might divide on this one, but a case can be made that it would
advance the welfare of Americans if the rest of the world didn't see Americans
as total a-holes.

------
tartuffe78
Reminds me Paolo Bacigalupi's stories, "Wind-up girl", "The calorie men" and
others. He's created a dystopian world of GM crops being the only viable food
source on the planet.

~~~
vectorjohn
Where's the dystopia in a world of GM crops? Sounds perfectly fine to me.

~~~
Synaesthesia
All your food is owned and locked up by major corporations under patent law,
for profit purposes which are protected and in league with the government. I
have a moral problem with it. Yeah it doesn't really impact me but it impacts
poor Mexican farmers and a lot of people in the 3rd world.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Any novel variety of a crop is locked up in patents.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930)

Like all patents, there are limitations, expiry dates, etc.

It's been around for nearly a century, yet we haven't arrived at the dystopian
future yet.

~~~
makomk
The Plant Patent Act excludes "sexual and tuber-propagated plants" \-
basically, pretty much all the crops you have to replant each season aren't
covered, though it does restrict the propagation of fruit trees and the like.
Prior to GMOs, sexually-propagated crops like corn were covered by the Plant
Variety Protection Act, which is much less restrictive than the utility
patents on GMOs - for example, it allows farmers to save and replant seeds,
which is illegal with GMOs.

~~~
sampo
So why is BASF Clearfield wheat, which is non-GMO, patented?

~~~
makomk
To cut a long story short, plants _were_ ineligible for utility patents (in
the US at least) because they were considered "products of nature". However,
the US Supreme Court decided that because GMOs existed, plants now count as
something made by man rather than a product of nature and could be patented -
including non-GMO ones produced using traditional breeding techniques that
were previously not patentable. It's a strange decision and I'm not sure I
follow their logic, but it's the law now.

------
trhway
i guess we're due for DRM built into the corn seeds/DNA. And in some near
future one can imagine human designer genes with DRM too. You lose connection
or skip monthly payment and your 3rd eye stops working...

~~~
sfRattan
Or the development of seeds whose plants do not bear further seeds. Impossible
with corn, which is entirely seeds, but possible with many fruits (apples,
oranges, peaches). That way the consumer can't buy a piece fruit and plant a
fruit tree... She'd have to buy the starter seeds from the company.

Call it BRM: Biological Rights (read: Restrictions) Management.

 _Edit: after some googling, I need to read the stories suggested by
tartuffe78. They look really good._

tartuffe78's comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10081875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10081875)

~~~
giltleaf
They do have the tech for terminator genes, and I think for corn too.
Basically, the corn seed is edible but it can't grow. Despite people freaking
out about them, none have been marketed and companies have pledged not to sell
them. Though feel free to speculate if that's because of public pressure or
not.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That would be a terrible thing to sell. A farmer plants the seed, the plants
grow, the pollen drifts far and wide, and the farmer next door winds up with
his crop not sprouting next year. And then come the lawsuits...

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
That's not how terminator works, nor is that how modern agriculture works.

Fields for seed are far removed from productive fields. It's trivial to keep
them separate from contamination; in fact, it's essential that this is done to
make selfs or directed crosses.

Terminator was made to address concerns about transgenes entering the wild.
Think of it like a mule; you still have offspring, but they're infertile.
That's what terminator does. It cannot ruin a crop. Seed is still made and can
be sold and eaten. It simply is infertile.

A construct was first developed by the ARS and USDA, and they were quite right
to pursue this. It's a useful technology.

------
ilaksh
I guess if the Chinese can't figure it out for themselves then they should
just starve.

Malthus would be proud of the people in this thread.

By the way, population isn't growing nearly as fast as it used to.

Also the answer to these problems is high-tech ultra-local subsistence farming
(aeroponics/aquaponics/dwarf orchards in/on the home) and the seeds and other
genetic enhancements should be open-source.

If we leave our food security up to a few giant American companies we are
asking for trouble. We meaning the global population, which by and large is
currently being fucked over by the system.

~~~
codingdave
Your first sentence is overly harsh. But the gist of what you are saying is
correct.

I'm not sure HN is the correct venue for discussions of small-scale ag,
though. Many people online have bought into the corporate premise that small-
scale agriculture cannot produce enough food. They tend to have studies
backing their claims, while all I can show is an actual homestead, actually
producing food.

To be honest, I've stopped caring what people online think. I'll keep just
growing my own food, offline. If I am wrong, I am just sustainably feeding my
family, using renewable energy instead of fossils fuels, and eating local
organic food, all the while teaching my kids a good work ethic, for nothing.

~~~
afarrell
> actual homestead actually producing food

How much land do you have under cultivation, what is your growing season, and
how much water do you consume?

The fact that your farm can feed your family is not enough to show that your
methods, if scaled up, could feed 315 million Americans (plus an unknown
number of people we export to) on 914 million acres of farmland.

The fact that the argument also comes from corporations does not change its
mathematics.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Jeez, do the math. 3 acres per person. You can grow millions of calories per
year per acre. 2500 calories times 365 days is only about a million calories.
Potatoes are 17 million calories per acre. There's plenty of space. The
problem is meat.

------
autobahn
It's almost as if he's asking for these companies to stop innovating.

Crop research isn't free, and the government can't (or won't) afford to do it.
Obviously the solution is to have companies fund the research and be expected
to give it away to the world and not protect what they've created.

I wish people stopped the whole "monsanto is evil! GMO is evil!" bullshit, and
start lobbying their government to fund public crop genetics research.

------
boof
this article smells funny...

