Two weeks ago we were asked to read a pair of articles prior to class that we would be discussing during our class period the following Wednesday. In short the two articles were about the "Big Seed" companies and how they are strictly limiting the ability for private research to be conducted on their new seed varieties. After reading the articles and witnessing the rather heated debate that occurred in class, i have no posted my thoughts on the matter below.
"Big Seed" companies have spent tremendous amounts of money to develop the current hybrids or varieties that we have today, and for that i am very thankful. However, i feel that by not letting private individuals and researchers conduct experiments, they are hiding something from the general public. Possibly long term soil affects? Long term personal health concerns? I really don't know, but without adequate testing of recent plant technologies the only real way to know is to continue on this path until something very negative happens many years down the road and think- now why didn't we force them to test their products? We will all be disgusted and criticize "those people" who absolutely forced new plant genetics upon us. How dare they! Or possibly they are completely harmless and we should do more to boost yields and continue to feed to world. But with such a large investment the companies should have some right to protect their products. A tiny bit of faulty information or a flawed experiment could cost a company untold amounts of income if it reflected badly on their products. Would the government bail them out if that information lead to their bankruptcy?
On the other hand, as an American consumer i cant see how they can be allowed to control all of the data about their products. For me it is funny that most times the company who owns the test plot, has the highest yields in that particular plot. So test plots and trials run by universities or private parties show unbiased comparisons that the average consumer (or producer in this case) can use to make decisions about what to plant. Another down side to producers is that seed costs seemingly have no ceiling. I understand that for new technologies there will be additional costs but where is the end. And with the proposed reduction in refuge acres, if resistant populations appear, "Big Seed" will again profit when they are able to release their "new resistance".
Honestly this makes for a good debate question, and their are logical points made on both sides. But for me the biggest question is where does it end? Do farmers quit buying seed that is loaded with traits? Or do producers and the public get answers from "Big Seed" firms? For now i cant see either side making a move, so time will tell.
