Breeders have "the power" to do all these licensing and patenting shenanigans because they are creating superior seeds. Farmers choose to use these restricted seeds because they make more money that way.
This effort of "open source seeds" is comparable to communal breeding, which hasn't been competitive to these breeding companies. It takes time and effort to develop these breeds, and an Open Source Seed Initiative would have to somehow replicate this advantage, probably by individual farmers taking a hit on returns from not using the most marketable seedstock in order to work on those lines.
>Breeders have "the power" to do all these licensing and patenting shenanigans because they are creating superior seeds.
'the power' also comes from lobbying and gaming the political system; it's not just product efficacy.
That's like saying John Deere has 'the power' to restrict right-to-repair because they make such a superior product, which is demonstrably false. They spend a large effort on securing their products' place in the market via legislation, propaganda, and the threat of discontinuation of service to the lower rung purchasers of their products. All of which are tactics which are effective for profiteering, but not that great morally or ethically -- especially given that we're talking about an industry that is attempting to feed the world with regards to this threads' discussion.
There are some fundamental factors which are hard to overcome. Mendelian genetics more or less dictates that hybrid breeding schemes are superior, in the big picture, to line breeding. But those schemes require long term organizing and capital investment.
Which is why companies have any say in breeding at all. The Open Source Seed Initiative would need to replicate this through cooperation in a community.
Farmers don't have big margins. They can't afford to waste money on crops that underperform, for whatever reasons. They can't afford to lose money on produce that isn't marketable for whatever reason.
Companies don't eat food and don't starve if they go without it so their opinions as corporate entities are moot as far as I am concerned. If it is more profitable to let people die they will do so.
Companies are owned, operated and regulated by Human beings.
I'm not saying "companies" have never done wrong, but I think your attitude is way over the top. And there is no way an agricultural company will benefit by tanking production.
What the OSSI wants to do is to put more power into the hands of farmers, and thus avoid the farmers being squeezed by a near-monopoly of certain breeding companies. It's really about prizes and margins, not about total agricultural output.
Come to think of it, I guess the whole world has to be starving before there is a large-scale food shortage in the US of A.
Sure they are, but distributed consciousness and individual consciousness isn't the same thing. A corporation doesn't have a body and that dichotomy is often used by individuals to dissociate themselves from things they would not be willing to do on an interpersonal level. This is a general issue with organizations.
> Do you have any idea about agricultural breeding? [..] Which is why companies have any say in breeding at all.
Do you have any idea about industry lobbying to restrict the use of traditional seeds [1]? Companies use every trick they can to increase profits and control - a superior product is merely one of them. There is also lobbying, marketing, anti-competitive contracts... It beggars belief to be so naive as to think otherwise.
I wasn't talking about lobbying and anti-competitive efforts at all, but rather I pointed out that there are particular reasons those companies have a stake in this at all.
High performance breeding is a complex endeavor and as such requires capital, organization and time. OSSI will not be able to do it with less capital, organization or time, but they might put competitive pressure on such companies.
There is a catalog of varieties allowed for sale, all others are banned.
It takes a lot of money and lobbying to have a variety on the allowed list.
So farmers are forced to use certain varieties if they want to sell them, not because those varieties are inherently superior.
In fact some ancient varieties are better adapted to the local climate than modern one size fits all varieties, but because farmers are not allowed to sell them have almost disappeared (noncommercial growers and associations have kept some going).
> There is a catalog of varieties allowed for sale, all others are banned.
Is this for the US or EU? And it's the first I heard of this, do you have a source? I recall there was some awful EU seed initiative that imposed a heavy regulatory burden on all seeds, effectively making sure only those with large capital backing them could be marketed. But then some exemptions were made for 'small' sellers or somesuch, and the media promptly forgot all about it..
"Our Seed Club:Due to really daft seed laws, many of our fantastic vegetable seeds can only be supplied to members of our Seed Club, because they are not on the 'approved list' of permitted vegetable varieties! But membership costs just one penny."
Actually often there is an abuse relation going on, certainly in developing countries where farmers don't know in the beginning that the "better" seeds they bought won't give them fertile seeds to reuse the next year - so they become dependent on buying new seeds each year.
This effort of "open source seeds" is comparable to communal breeding, which hasn't been competitive to these breeding companies. It takes time and effort to develop these breeds, and an Open Source Seed Initiative would have to somehow replicate this advantage, probably by individual farmers taking a hit on returns from not using the most marketable seedstock in order to work on those lines.