Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are here, I have some. They are available in nurseries.
even those chinese backcrosses are still in the developmental stage, as i understand it. that is, we don't know yet if they'll be fully resistant to chestnut blight.
more to the point - why wait helplessly while most of your trees are destroyed rather than use technology that is readily at hand? that's the situation facing the citrus industry in the fight against citrus greening.
Thanks for a very level headed and informative post.
Quote:
OpenD is correct - if you surround your non-GMO papaya with GMO papaya, it does create a barrier for transmission via aphid. Unfortunately, this also results in the eventual infiltration of GMO genetic material into the non-GMO crop so you'll end up with a 100% GMO field over time instead of just a barrier.
I see this as a lot less of an issue than one might think. First, the propagation method of GMO papayas includes selection of only "hermaphrodite" plants, which are self-pollinating, so the actual risk of cross pollination is small. Second, Dr. Gonzales has determined that there is no GMO material transfer to the flesh of papayas which have been cross pollinated, only to the seeds, so there is no good reason to consider the fruit as "contaminated."
Quote:
Dr. Gonzalez created SunUp to save the papayas (and secondarily the livelihood of papaya growers) and it was originally offered free to any farmer that wanted it. Somewhere along the line, Monsanto ended up with the patent and then "generously" extended open license to the Hawaiian Papaya Industry for use and distribution at their discretion.
As far as I can tell, there was no involvement with Monsanto until...
Quote:
"Gonsalves and Manshardt prepared and submitted technical documents required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In September 1997 the federal regulatory agencies completed their review and approved the transgenic papaya for production and sale. PAC success fully negotiated use licenses with Monsanto Company, Asgrow Seed Company, Cambia Biosystems L.L.C., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."- Production Requirements of the Transgenic Papayas ‘UH Rainbow’ and ‘UH SunUp’
In other words, there were patented technologies used in the research process to produce the PRSV resistant plants, and once the results became viable in the marketplace, those patents had to be licensed. And there are restrictions on the licenses, such as that these papayas can only be grown in Hawai'i, can only be grown from licensed seed, and the fruit can only be shipped to countries where GMO technology is legal. Along the way some licensing fees apparently accrued, which is why the free distribution of seed by the universities stopped.
Quote:
There are pros and cons to the GE varieties -- while they are resistant to PRSV, the seed is more expensive for unsubsidized growers, the plants require additional fertilization, and the fields must be replanted from new seed** more frequently than non GMO varieties, and producers have lost a portion of their market from countries that ban GMO.
I question each of these points, particularly the last. Producers had lost their export market entirely because the PRSV blemishes made the fruit unsalable. Now they have largely recovered the market and shipments have resumed to japan, Canada, and the US mainland.
And... increased fertilization? Perhaps, but wouldn't the 50% larger size of the fruit have something to do with that?
Quote:
** it is unclear why mature GE papayas must be uprooted and destroyed after 3 years. Does the resistance decline? Does the yield drop drastically? Is it a condition of the use license?
No, I don't know where the confusion comes from, but both GMO and non-GMO papayas in Hawai'i are routinely chopped down after 3 - 4 years because productivity drops.
In other words, there were patented technologies used in the research process to produce the PRSV resistant plants, and once the results became viable in the marketplace, those patents had to be licensed. And there are restrictions on the licenses, such as that these papayas can only be grown in Hawai'i, can only be grown from licensed seed, and the fruit can only be shipped to countries where GMO technology is legal. Along the way some licensing fees apparently accrued, which is why the free distribution of seed by the universities stopped.
So the patents were licensed and license fees were collected to pay for the costs of FDA approval and recover the costs of initial research & development? Dr. Gonzales developed this with the use of several research grants, at a land grant university... arguably, R&D was already paid for by tax dollars and public grant. Perhaps Monsanto supplied a private grant, and release of patent to them was a condition of funds? Or Dr. G used a Monsanto-patented gene technology/process, and part of the licensing agreement was the release of patent on his papaya?
I don't think there is anything in patent law that requires licensing or receipt of payment for the technology as a condition of granting or holding patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
No, I don't know where the confusion comes from, but both GMO and non-GMO papayas in Hawai'i are routinely chopped down after 3 - 4 years because productivity drops.
Then I guess the concern/issue is that producers must pay to purchase new certified GMO seed and renew your license instead of being able to freely save and plant seed from their own non-GMO fruits.
Or Dr. G used a Monsanto-patented gene technology/process, and part of the licensing agreement was the release of patent on his papaya?
My understanding is that the patent on the plant itself was put in the public domain, but that each of the 4 patent holders whose technology was used in creating that plant still has their separate interest, which required separate licenses. Perhaps there was some kind of trade off, I don't know.
Quote:
I don't think there is anything in patent law that requires licensing or receipt of payment for the technology as a condition of granting or holding patent.
I don't know, but as I understand it the underlying purpose of patents is to REVEAL new technology so that it can be duplicated and exploited and evolved by others (rather than to conceal new art by treating it as a trade secret) so the principle is that reasonable fees must be set for licenses. Every time Apple loses a patent suit by Samsung, for example, the court decides on a reasonable fee for Apple to pay Samsung for the use of that technology.
One light at the end of the tunnel is that the basic technology patents underlying all this GMO work seem to be approaching end of life.
Quote:
Then I guess the concern/issue is that producers must pay to purchase new certified GMO seed and renew your license instead of being able to freely save and plant seed from their own non-GMO fruits.
UHRainbow is an F1 hybrid, so it wouldn't breed true anyway.
Commercially, farmers have been "forced" to buy seed ever since the first hybrid corns were released by U of Kansas in 1933. Forced, only in the sense that if you want to grow a hybrid variety, or a patented variety, you have to buy fresh seed each time you plant. If you don't want to grow that variety, grow something else that is "open-sourced." Nobody is stopping you. But farmers have lined up to buy the GMO papaya seed because it's a viable crop for them to grow.
Yes, F1 hybrids won't breed true so you do have to keep buying new seeds (or create the hybrid yourself, assuming one of the parents isn't a licensed GMO like Rainbow). Of course, you could plant the seeds of fruit from a hybrid plant without legal issue, but you might not get the improvements of the hybrid because it doesn't breed true.
Patents protect the interests of person who develop/invent intellectual property. Until said patent expires, no other party may replicate, produce or utilize said IP without license.
I agree with patenting technology, mechanisms or processes; and enforcing use/licensing fees on patents if the patent holder wishes. So patenting the gene tech and charging use fees for that and any specialized patented equipment makes sense, but patenting and licensing the resultant seed... that's a rub.
To use another industry as an example... a patent exists on a cotton loom, a cotton weaving facility must pay the license fee if they use that machine, but the resultant cotton fabric produced isn't automatically patentable or protected under that patent. Or another... a software program that is developed on machine with a licensed operating system doesn't automatically become the patentable IP of the OS developer.
Most patentable technology is not capable of natural self-replication, like GMO seeds and the resulting plants are... so I guess the disagreement is with the court's ruling that sexually reproducing plants can be patented past the first seed iteration.
You pay the big money for the first batch batch of seed from the developer under license, because they were produced (just like F1) but subsequent seeds resulting from natural sexual reproduction of the plants that are grown are outside of patent and license. If the novel enhancement naturally passes to subsequent generations without any additional assistance or intervention on the part of the producer, that's a failure on the manufacturer's part... a failure to protect their own interests and patent by precluding natural reproduction entirely or ensuring it doesn't breed true. Once it's "in the wild", the only patent infringement would be if a seed producer grew the plant specifically to sell the seed or breed an intentional hybrid... not just a farmer saving the seed from his own harvest to grow future harvests.
Natural sexual reproduction negates novelty... like when a brand name or tagline becomes synonymous with a product and is used as a common noun for all products of that type regardless of brand, that holder risks losing the trademark (think Xerox, Kleenex, Band-Aid, etc).
Yes, F1 hybrids won't breed true so you do have to keep buying new seeds (or create the hybrid yourself, assuming one of the parents isn't a licensed GMO like Rainbow). Of course, you could plant the seeds of fruit from a hybrid plant without legal issue, but you might not get the improvements of the hybrid because it doesn't breed true.
1) You would not get the benefits of the hybrid by planting its seeds, no. 2) You could probably plant the seeds for your own personal use without legal issue, but any commercialization could be problematic. As a matter of fact I do have a couple of UHSunUp papayas planted in my garden now for my own use, as do my neighbors, because the seeds from the fruits do run true. But if I were to plant an orchard I'd need to buy a license and seed from the papaya council. That seems to me to be a reasonable equilibrium between competing interests.
Quote:
Patents protect the interests of person who develop/invent intellectual property. Until said patent expires, no other party may replicate, produce or utilize said IP without license.
Agreed, but the license must be made available at a reasonable fee. At least, that's how the computer industry works. My smartphone probably has 100 cross licensed patents involved, maybe more. And when one company violates another's patent, whether knowingly or knowingly, they don't withdraw them from the market and run them through shredders, they just work out a reasonable license fee.
Quote:
Most patentable technology is not capable of natural self-replication, like GMO seeds and the resulting plants are... so I guess the disagreement is with the court's ruling that sexually reproducing plants can be patented past the first seed iteration.
Well, in the Indiana soybean case, the initial license included the proviso that resulting seed could not be planted. And the farmer knowingly and deliberately cheated on his license by planting cheap feedstock that he knew was mostly GMO in order to reduce his financial risk on late season planting. And the cheat worked, so he did it again and again, year after year. He absolutely knew exactly what he was doing, and he got caught at it, and he lost the case.
Quote:
You pay the big money for the first batch batch of seed from the developer under license, because they were produced (just like F1) but subsequent seeds resulting from natural sexual reproduction of the plants that are grown are outside of patent and license.
I suppose you mean that your position is that you feel they should be... but they are not. Personally I don't see this as any different from buying a patented rose bush which has a restriction against propagating the variety. If you want more of them, you are legally obligated to buy more of them. And you can't sell them.
Quote:
If the novel enhancement naturally passes to subsequent generations without any additional assistance or intervention on the part of the producer, that's a failure on the manufacturer's part... a failure to protect their own interests and patent by precluding natural reproduction entirely or ensuring it doesn't breed true.
Of course Monsanto already has a technology to accomplish the same end... the so-called Terminator gene that prevents saved seed from growing, but wisely they are not using it. I think the public opposition to them making such a move could actually cause them great damage.
Quote:
Once it's "in the wild", the only patent infringement would be if a seed producer grew the plant specifically to sell the seed or breed an intentional hybrid... not just a farmer saving the seed from his own harvest to grow future harvests
.
From a practical standpoint, that would require much higher seed costs, because companies would need to get their entire investment back from sales of a single generation of seeds. Wisely, I think, the SCOTUS ruling recognized that the huge investment in producing these new varieties cannot be recouped that way, but must come from multiple years of seed sales. Otherwise the development money will dry up.
Yes, I do understand how the licensing system does work currently. I just think extending the licensing of subsequent product (i.e. seeds saved from the resulting harvest) is incongruous with other patenting and licensing... like the cotton loom vs. cotton fabric example I mentioned... if other industries were used as the logical precedent, the future generation preclusion in the use license might be seen as illegal/unenforceable or at least anti-trust.
The whole problem stems from the fact that plants and animals are self-replicating, unlike anything else that is patented and licensed. Patenting the lifeform vs. patenting the technology used to modify the lifeform is one of the major points of contention.
The whole problem stems from the fact that plants and animals are self-replicating, unlike anything else that is patented and licensed. Patenting the lifeform vs. patenting the technology used to modify the lifeform is one of the major points of contention.
Yes, but the difference in the way the patent works is entirely attributable to the fact that plants and animals can reproduce. I don't see it as an odious restriction, because after all, the patent is only good for 20 years. Then the restrictions and the need for licenses lifts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
