Because the point that is wrong is the ban (everyone will have noticed ...)
How would prohibiting the perpetuation of hardy seeds be fair? And how would it be fair to tax them?
It is not to be off topic, to seek the causes, to know who should finance and why, yes the why to wonder about a qualitative selection rather than quantitative (and again we are nice, because we do not speak no "soil exhaustion" ... which is at the heart of the debate on which politicians should work, rather than encouraging the continuation of insane crop yields, implying the use of chemistry and necessarily the selection of varieties capable of surviving it ... look for the error ...). Because make no mistake, the majority of breeders and the industry are working in this direction. (Like I said, I have nothing against others)
Rather than continuing to put their heads in a bag, in order to stay on the sidelines of the myth of consumption at low cost and high yield at all costs, with breeders "in command" provided they remain in denial , that it costs the minimum and that it brings a max to the applicants ... (And yes applicants, because by placing the grain producer in the position of applicant to have to sell its production - too big the large distrib ... and the agromachin industry - those who have a cereal offer are now in the position of seekers, trapped between indebtedness and the disadvantageous spiral of purchase prices almost imposed by buyers who impose their law ....)
I have no obligation to be silent
