What must be understood from a legal point of view is that such a drastic and compulsory measure should never have retroactive effect. Thus, the law should only apply to new varieties discovered and / or produced from the date of implementation! So we would leave it to "the market" to decide which is the right formula. Because every time the industry mixes up with the laws, it always manages to make customers captive, and therefore to make sure that the laws of the market do not apply to it!
Although the work of breeders inspires respect from certain angles (antoine111 is right to put in the balance the positive points of the profession, but what are they really ... with regard to hardy species ... apart from being " at the orders "of industry and the large distribution, which want" standard "products) it is thus necessary to be interested in the causes of the problem (as every time ...)
The causes are simple: the commodification of the living (which Clasou doesn't like either ...), speculation, the shameless profits of the private sector, and therefore of the industry that this new law will promote! And above all, mass distribution!
Therefore, "Ensure an easy recipe that does not limit the resource" is certainly commendable, but what must take precedence is the very quality of the resource above all!
The losers as always: the farmers, and at the other end of the chain: the consumers (who will only benefit from it for a while ...)
And so despite the laudable arguments of Antoine111, I would rather be against it, for various reasons.
First there is a question of principle, that the preservation / protection of the living, should be the role of the State, in the best interests of the people. It is therefore a heresy from the start, that we have arrived at a situation where a few individuals - possibly smelling a niche market (the breeders) - have sought to develop a sector which should never even have been of their spring ... Although I applaud the dissidents who did it to fight against the system. So they probably knew from the start, that they were working for glory then ... since they did it all their lives for an almost voluntary period ... then they shouldn't come to complain! Because finally they only looked for varieties that were ultimately favorable to the industry, possibly without knowing it themselves (whatever ... ^^), and finally at their expense, let me explain , even if it is cruel to have arrived there for them:
antoinet111 wrote:Christophe wrote:Why not think about long-term leasing offers? A farmer cultivates your "improved" seed as long as he harvests, he pays a royalty per tonne sold and not for the number of seeds sown ... A very low trick but which would make it possible to finance research at INRA (or elsewhere)
Farmers do not want to pay, they have, for the most part, nothing to do with the varietal creation, so it's not necessarily the right solution.
Well no, disagree!
If I am 100% FOR intellectual protection, individual efforts, etc., I am resolutely AGAINST the commodification of life, the patenting of bio-food, it's heresy! And not only for ethical questions, but above all for public health issues!
What weight do the "independents" face the industry (Montsanto and the others who are currently rubbing their hands).
BUT THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IS FOR THIRD COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. There is a great risk that such measures will emulate ... For bad arguments. Because we are at the heart of a paradox:
- on one side of the scale we have the massive argument of food self-sufficiency, hygiene (arguments taken up in heart by the industry);
- on the other hand, the health interest, all the arguments of which go against the interests of industry. In this context ""
Those who have worked all their lives to speculate winning on it have their rank! You shouldn't have been playing and trying to earn money with that! That’s the lesson!
By continuing like this we play with fire. We will end up being completely captive of the industry, we walk on our heads!
IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE MARKET ECONOMY, YOU MUST PAY THE BIG DISTRIBUTION AND ESPECIALLY ASK THE END CONSUMER FOR YOUR OPINION !!!
Because we may say, the food industry is industrializing in defiance of quality ... Consumers have NEVER WANTED uniformity. But this does not come from the work or not of the breeders, it comes from the fact that the large distribution and the industry impose standards, this is where you have to hit the nest!
And all this is in the pure logic of the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, this monster in the pay of the industry and in total contradiction with the essential criteria of public health.
Where we must be indignant is that since the fifties, the cost of the basket of the housewife does not stop falling, which goes hand in hand with the DROP in quality.
I worked in the past with a crazy EC (Economic Commission for Europe), and know that it was he who fixed the callibre of fruits and vegetables: results of millions of tons of unsold on the markets because of a technocrat decision! Fortunately, just a few years ago, these absurd measures disappeared.
These are the technocrats who make stupid decisions, even though they never knew how to plant a nail or of course a salad or cereals ...
The legislator should have banned seed trafficking for a long time. It is a matter of logic. If there is indeed a role that should be invasive by the state, it should be that one. Because he must be the guarantor of public health! If there is one area that should not be controlled by "private interests", this is it.
I have nothing against the "obtainers", if their work is meritorious and goes in the direction of public health it is very good, but what does not stick is that it should not concern private interests . No, then! And alas, this decision will primarily benefit the industry (the seeders), not the latter. The seminarians are leading the way and they don't give a damn about the work of a few free electrons. Who will burst the slab just as much, because they do not control DISTRIBUTION!
Again, this is where you should have typed! But too many big interests at stake ... So between the plague and cholera, the legislator lacked courage!
Besides, on the political level, I find this decision contradictory with the good idea of taxing sodas!
Long before that, governments had to take health measures such as banning the marketing of refined flour, this would be a REAL PROBLEM to be solved ... Because the varieties that are developed for this purpose (the vast majority) do not go in the interest: neither of public health, nor that of consumers!
Even INRA is not doing its job in the field, since they have worked on varieties in line with the needs of the food industry.
Even though it is recognized in terms of public health, that notorious food shortcomings have appeared in our societies, because of food by refined flour!
What is their interest for the consumer and for his health? None, because the refined flours are DEVITALIZED, experience it yourself, submit devitalized flours and whole flours to mites ... And you will see the result! Vermin is not interested in it, because there is no more life in it! She herself is not mistaken!
While we are so degenerate that we are no longer able to tell the difference with our taste and smell!
Obviously devitalized flours are hygienic, because they are stable! What makes their original instability is precisely "LIFE"! We have known this for a long time, especially with the studies of Linus Pauling, and long before that with the discovery of scurvy.
What is their interest for the industry? Gigantic:
- easy to store and for a long time!
- hardly needs any control once transformed!
- give a “standard” product.
- allow speculation on the price of raw materials.
- allow to maintain a huge pressure on prices against the interest of producers / farmers.
- favor large farms.
- are of considerable interest since they make it possible to obtain standard products and thus to simplify the transformation / manufacturing processes.
- by causing large food shortages in the population, makes the operation very profitable for the pharmaceutical industry, which it will sell drugs to counter the effects, but there it will not be given to consumers ...
What is their interest from the point of view of public health? They temporarily improve the "quantitative" to meet the need to increase the global rate (it is always the argument that they come out to justify that ...). But it is to promote a purely caloric diet ... Without any long-term health benefits. These are all foods that lead to the weakening of the species ...
That said, I could be wrong, but then to demonstrate the contrary, we will need much stronger arguments than those who are notoriously there to defend the private interest (even marginal) against the real interest of the community.
That said, I am in favor of a tax on research, so that breeders can live decently. But this tax should be justified by the variety produced / supplied by the farmer (therefore on invoice), and it should of course be paid by THE PURCHASER in addition to the production price. Then paid directly to an independent body responsible for making statistics and remunerating / distributing this windfall to the independent breeders (except industry, which has other means to amortize "research"). So farmers could continue to replant their own production from seeds from their own agricultural research! They should then pay the tax, but at the same time receive a subsidy for their research work! There it would seem fairer than a pure and hard ban. Because basically, what will the ban be used for, it won't prevent fraud, so you might as well charge the APPLICANT!
