Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 144 posts

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

em-bee wrote: post #13

regardless of how the contract is structured, no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away. this is similar to a law in the EU that forbids producers or distributors of clothing to destroy products they don't want to sell. once you plant a tree to grow fruit you should be allowed to keep harvesting that tree until its natural end. if there is an exclusive contract then the contract must not be…

> no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away

It doesn't, to my knowledge. It requires they not sell them.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#32

Post by maxerickson »

em-bee wrote: post #13

regardless of how the contract is structured, no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away. this is similar to a law in the EU that forbids producers or distributors of clothing to destroy products they don't want to sell. once you plant a tree to grow fruit you should be allowed to keep harvesting that tree until its natural end. if there is an exclusive contract then the contract must not be…

Would you bar a contract for the productivity of a tree for a given period of time, with a clause dictating how excess produce is to be disposed of?

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#33

Post by gruez »

jMyles wrote: post #23
bluerooibos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ..and none does. Monsanto begs to differ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co .

Of course, but my point is: Monsanto is obviously incorrect. It's plain to see. Plants grow without permission. Bytes flow without permission. Ideas propagate without permission. All this silliness to create a huge complicated regime to pretend that these things are "property" in the same sense as your underwear is just so obviously childish, incoherent, and inconsistent with reality. It's just a really elaborate gow…

>Of course, but my point is: Monsanto is obviously incorrect. It's plain to see. Plants grow without permission. Bytes flow without permission. Ideas propagate without permission.

So you're against any sort of intellectual property?

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#34

Post by sampo »

Aurornis wrote: post #21
efitz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, and there is a special place in hell reserved for anyone involved in designing food crops that can’t reproduce.

It is preferable if genetically engineered crops cannot reproduce. The impact of their wild propagation should be studied first, not unleashed upon the local ecosystem.

> their wild propagation

In general, crop plants don't propagate well in the wild. The whole point of breeding a crop plant is to remove their chemical defenses (to make them edible) and to make them produce lots of edible parts. This is usually the direct opposite of what plants need to survive in the wild.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#35

Post by xhkkffbf »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22
ars wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are perfectly free to keep selling what we've been eating. No one is forcing people to plant the new stuff. If you make patents illegal, no one will breed new stuff. How does that help? All that will do is cause people to grow the old stuff, which they still can, even if the patent exists. Do you get what I mean? Adding a patent does not reduce anything, it only adds a new option.

> If you make patents illegal, no one will breed new stuff. How does that help? There would still be public, industry-group and philanthropic research. But yes, probably much less.

And there still is today. But are they producing good nectarines? Apparently not as good as these.

I know that occasionally philanthropic research works out, but generally I find that people are motivated by profit.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#36

Post by pjmorris »

ribosometronome wrote: post #26
efitz wrote: post #6

Patents on food crops, even genetically engineered ones, are evil. ALL our staple food crops and most non staples are genetically engineered by millennia of cultivation and selective breeding; CRISPR is just a fancy mechanism for what we’ve always done to food. Regulations that prevent farmers from selling food that is safe, are evil. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the regulation is. Any government functionar…

In general, invention of new things is something humanity's been tackling for quite awhile. Why would this apply specifically to food versus, well, everything?

I can go for a month, probably longer, without, say, the internet. I could also go a month without food, maybe, but there are people who can't. Food is different because it is essential to life.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#37

Post by em-bee »

ribosometronome wrote: post #17
em-bee wrote: post #13

regardless of how the contract is structured, no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away. this is similar to a law in the EU that forbids producers or distributors of clothing to destroy products they don't want to sell. once you plant a tree to grow fruit you should be allowed to keep harvesting that tree until its natural end. if there is an exclusive contract then the contract must not be…

>Mora later sought to terminate his relationship with Giumarra, and he sold his nectarines to another fruit packer in 2023 The farmer sought termination and violated the contract.

ah, good catch. the question now is whether giumarra accepted the termination or not. i could not find that detail in the article. if they accepted it, then my argument holds (note that i am arguing how things should be, not what the actual current law on the matter is). if giumarra did not accept termination then the exclusive contract should still hold. (whether an exclusive contract is fair or not is another topic)

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#38

Post by odie5533 »

efitz wrote: post #9
efitz wrote: post #6

Patents on food crops, even genetically engineered ones, are evil. ALL our staple food crops and most non staples are genetically engineered by millennia of cultivation and selective breeding; CRISPR is just a fancy mechanism for what we’ve always done to food. Regulations that prevent farmers from selling food that is safe, are evil. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the regulation is. Any government functionar…

Oh, and there is a special place in hell reserved for anyone involved in designing food crops that can’t reproduce.

Essentially all commercial apple trees are grafted and don't reproduce true to seed. Been this way for almost a century now.

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#39

Post by cyberax »

efitz wrote: post #9
efitz wrote: post #6

Patents on food crops, even genetically engineered ones, are evil. ALL our staple food crops and most non staples are genetically engineered by millennia of cultivation and selective breeding; CRISPR is just a fancy mechanism for what we’ve always done to food. Regulations that prevent farmers from selling food that is safe, are evil. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the regulation is. Any government functionar…

Oh, and there is a special place in hell reserved for anyone involved in designing food crops that can’t reproduce.

So you want to destroy all the people who create hybrid plants? Isn't that a bit cruel?

Edit: also, Monsanto has never actually used their non-replicating seeds. This is a common trope in the greenie hippie community that "Monsanto wants to own your food forever".

Re: Farmer, marketer at odds over sales of white nectarines

#40

Post by HDThoreaun »

IncandescentGas wrote: post #29
ars wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are perfectly free to keep selling what we've been eating. No one is forcing people to plant the new stuff. If you make patents illegal, no one will breed new stuff. How does that help? All that will do is cause people to grow the old stuff, which they still can, even if the patent exists. Do you get what I mean? Adding a patent does not reduce anything, it only adds a new option.

> You are perfectly free to keep selling what we've been eating. No one is forcing people to plant the new stuff. This common sense statement should be true, but is wholly ignorant of the lawsuits farmers deal with from seed suppliers

Which law suits would those be? It seems to me that the reality is that GMO seeds are really useful and all the lawsuits Ive seen are farmers wanting to use them without paying royalties.
Post reply on HN