Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
Latest Seedling magazine now available online January 2007 Every day the biotechnology companies bombard us with their publicity. We are told that eight million farmers throughout the world are already enjoying higher yields and lower production costs because of the benefits of genetically modified crops. And forever dangled before us is the carrot of far greater improvements in the future. We are promised that within a decade the biotech companies will have designed crops that will deal with drought, salinisation and all the other problems that we are likely to be facing as the result of global warming and climate change. But how true are these claims? Have hybrids and GM crops really reduced costs and increased yields? And is this kind of farming sustainable? It is often difficult to probe behind the hype of the biotech companies and to find out what is happening on the ground. In this edition, we have an extensive first-hand report from China about the real impact of hybrid rice, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=455 which now covers well over half of the area under rice cultivation in this vast country. Another article brings together reports from many different countries - Burkina Faso, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa and the USA - about the impact of Monsanto's genetically modified Bt cotton, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=457 which has now been on the market for a decade. The reports uncover profound concerns among the farmers and a worrying lack of transparency among the advocates of the new technologies. In both cases, it is clear that, even if the new crops bring short-term benefits (and this is not always the case), these can soon be outweighed by serious long-term problems in both the financial and agronomic viability of the new varieties. The biotech companies' response to the plethora of problems is to come up with another round of technical fixes. We are already hearing about the second - and even third - generation of GM crops engineered to deal with the problems created by the first generation. And so it will continue. Not surprisingly, many farmers throughout the world are increasingly sceptical and are returning to the tried-and-tested practices of agro-ecological farming. Support is growing for the concept of food sovereignty - the idea that communities have the right to define their own agricultural, pastoral, labour, fishing, food and land policies, in accordance with their own ecological, social, economic and cultural circumstances. In this edition, we talk to two different proponents of food sovereignty, one in Africa, one in India. http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=456 Not surprisingly, their strategies are different, for they come from very different parts of the world, but they agree on one essential point - the need for local farmers to be the ones who decide which crops they cultivate, what farming methods they use and how their produce should be marketed. In February advocates of food sovereignty from the five continents will be meeting in Mali for the Forum for Food Sovereignty. Click here to go to the publication http://www.grain.org/seedling/?type=66 - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
So, when the farmers stop farming becauser they can't buy the seed, are the big *head honchos* going to go hungry too?? They don't seem to think of that kind of angle much. Seems the only route left open is to grow yer own - Indeed, and join seed-saving and sharing networks. It's worth the effort to plant some varieties just to help keep them going, even if you don't really need the crop. We're doing that at the moment with old varieties of wheat, barley and rye, plus millet, rice and corn come summer. There are still good seed companies though, but more and more of them get bought out by the big guys. I think some of the little guys can't be bought out, but maybe they can be squeezed out. they can't toss everyone in the cooler for having seeds... remember - we are the many - they are the few Yea verily. On the other hand that's just what they do with cannabis smokers, and they seem quite unfazed by the grotesquely high prison populations, nor by the obvious fact that it's ineffective - well, apart from all the unfortunate side-effects, that is, they're very effective, but it doesn't stop people smoking dope. Heritage seeds and local networks or not, I think a major problem with this seed company bid for Total Control is that an erosion of varieties will inevitably ensue, following the severe erosion that's already happened because of seed industrialisation - and right at a time when global warming and climate change mean we're likely to need all the varieties we can get, the old, proven, tried and tested, everlasting traditional heritage varieties developed by careful farmers and growers worldwide through the centuries, not just a handful of rather useless corporate hybrids and GMOs. http://journeytoforever.org/seeds.html Seeds of the world (See next message, also from GRAIN.) Best Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's planting. This briefing traces the recent discussions within the seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable from a patent. BACKGROUND Seed companies already have strong legal support from governments. In many countries, seed laws require farmers to use only certified seed of government-approved varieties. That seed is often available only from commercial seed companies. A rapidly increasing number of governments also grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety protection (PVP). Until recently, both seed patents and PVP existed only in developed countries. But since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in 1994, all member governments must provide some form of monopoly rights on seeds. There is now enormous pressure on developing countries to adopt the developed country models. Many have been persuaded to join the international PVP system, managed by UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants). In the past ten years, UPOV has more than doubled its membership. Most new members are developing countries. The UPOV system was originally set up in 1961, in response to many years of lobbying by the seed industry. What the companies really wanted was to have industrial patents on seeds. Patents give absolute rights to control all uses of the seed, both for planting and for further breeding. But at the time many governments felt that patents would give industry too much power over farmers. The UPOV PVP was created as a compromise. From the beginning, it gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year, and other breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not, to develop a new one. During the 1980s, the development of genetic engineering attracted large transnational companies from the pharmaceuticals and chemical sectors into plant breeding. With their much greater lobbying power, they began a new offensive to strengthen monopoly rights on plant breeding in developed countries. First, they got industrial patents on plants bred with genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques. This meant, in practice, that they got the absolute monopoly that conventional breeders had been refused two decades earlier. Second, the UPOV PVP rights were radically expanded for all plant varieties, GE or conventional. Since 1991, the PVP monopoly has
Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
Yoiks! Just a cursory read of this post makes me think of Windoze - the seed version where every technical glitch is met with another genetic patch... I don't really care much about computers and Windoze issues - can't eat 'em... but I do care about someone monkeying with my food - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed Latest Seedling magazine now available online January 2007 Every day the biotechnology companies bombard us with their publicity. We are told that eight million farmers throughout the world are already enjoying higher yields and lower production costs because of the benefits of genetically modified crops. And forever dangled before us is the carrot of far greater improvements in the future. We are promised that within a decade the biotech companies will have designed crops that will deal with drought, salinisation and all the other problems that we are likely to be facing as the result of global warming and climate change. But how true are these claims? Have hybrids and GM crops really reduced costs and increased yields? And is this kind of farming sustainable? It is often difficult to probe behind the hype of the biotech companies and to find out what is happening on the ground. In this edition, we have an extensive first-hand report from China about the real impact of hybrid rice, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=455 which now covers well over half of the area under rice cultivation in this vast country. Another article brings together reports from many different countries - Burkina Faso, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa and the USA - about the impact of Monsanto's genetically modified Bt cotton, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=457 which has now been on the market for a decade. The reports uncover profound concerns among the farmers and a worrying lack of transparency among the advocates of the new technologies. In both cases, it is clear that, even if the new crops bring short-term benefits (and this is not always the case), these can soon be outweighed by serious long-term problems in both the financial and agronomic viability of the new varieties. The biotech companies' response to the plethora of problems is to come up with another round of technical fixes. We are already hearing about the second - and even third - generation of GM crops engineered to deal with the problems created by the first generation. And so it will continue.S Not surprisingly, many farmers throughout the world are increasingly sceptical and are returning to the tried-and-tested practices of agro-ecological farming. Support is growing for the concept of food sovereignty - the idea that communities have the right to define their own agricultural, pastoral, labour, fishing, food and land policies, in accordance with their own ecological, social, economic and cultural circumstances. In this edition, we talk to two different proponents of food sovereignty, one in Africa, one in India. http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=456 Not surprisingly, their strategies are different, for they come from very different parts of the world, but they agree on one essential point - the need for local farmers to be the ones who decide which crops they cultivate, what farming methods they use and how their produce should be marketed. In February advocates of food sovereignty from the five continents will be meeting in Mali for the Forum for Food Sovereignty. Click here to go to the publication http://www.grain.org/seedling/?type=66 - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
grow yer own roll yer own load yer own take care of yer own the hurtin is comin Keith Addison wrote: So, when the farmers stop farming becauser they can't buy the seed, are the big *head honchos* going to go hungry too?? They don't seem to think of that kind of angle much. Seems the only route left open is to grow yer own - Indeed, and join seed-saving and sharing networks. It's worth the effort to plant some varieties just to help keep them going, even if you don't really need the crop. We're doing that at the moment with old varieties of wheat, barley and rye, plus millet, rice and corn come summer. There are still good seed companies though, but more and more of them get bought out by the big guys. I think some of the little guys can't be bought out, but maybe they can be squeezed out. they can't toss everyone in the cooler for having seeds... remember - we are the many - they are the few Yea verily. On the other hand that's just what they do with cannabis smokers, and they seem quite unfazed by the grotesquely high prison populations, nor by the obvious fact that it's ineffective - well, apart from all the unfortunate side-effects, that is, they're very effective, but it doesn't stop people smoking dope. Heritage seeds and local networks or not, I think a major problem with this seed company bid for Total Control is that an erosion of varieties will inevitably ensue, following the severe erosion that's already happened because of seed industrialisation - and right at a time when global warming and climate change mean we're likely to need all the varieties we can get, the old, proven, tried and tested, everlasting traditional heritage varieties developed by careful farmers and growers worldwide through the centuries, not just a handful of rather useless corporate hybrids and GMOs. http://journeytoforever.org/seeds.html Seeds of the world (See next message, also from GRAIN.) Best Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's planting. This briefing traces the recent discussions within the seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable from a patent. BACKGROUND Seed companies already have strong legal support from governments. In many countries, seed laws require farmers to use only certified seed of government-approved varieties. That seed is often available only from commercial seed companies. A rapidly increasing number of governments also grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety protection (PVP). Until recently, both seed patents and PVP existed only in developed countries. But since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in 1994, all member governments must provide some form of monopoly rights on seeds. There is now enormous pressure on developing countries to adopt the developed country models. Many have been persuaded to join the international PVP system, managed by UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants). In the past ten years, UPOV has more than doubled its membership. Most new members are developing countries. The UPOV system was originally set up in 1961, in response to many years of lobbying by the seed industry. What the companies really wanted was to have industrial patents on seeds. Patents give absolute rights to control all uses of the seed, both for planting and for further breeding. But at the time many governments felt that patents would give industry too much power over farmers. The UPOV PVP was created as a compromise. From the beginning, it gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year, and other breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not, to develop a new one. During the 1980s, the development of genetic engineering attracted large transnational companies from the pharmaceuticals and chemical sectors into plant breeding. With their much greater lobbying power, they began a new offensive to strengthen monopoly rights on plant breeding in developed countries. First, they got industrial patents on plants bred with genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques. This meant, in practice, that they got the absolute monopoly that conventional breeders had been refused two decades earlier. Second, the UPOV PVP rights were radically expanded for all plant varieties, GE
[Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's planting. This briefing traces the recent discussions within the seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable from a patent. BACKGROUND Seed companies already have strong legal support from governments. In many countries, seed laws require farmers to use only certified seed of government-approved varieties. That seed is often available only from commercial seed companies. A rapidly increasing number of governments also grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety protection (PVP). Until recently, both seed patents and PVP existed only in developed countries. But since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in 1994, all member governments must provide some form of monopoly rights on seeds. There is now enormous pressure on developing countries to adopt the developed country models. Many have been persuaded to join the international PVP system, managed by UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants). In the past ten years, UPOV has more than doubled its membership. Most new members are developing countries. The UPOV system was originally set up in 1961, in response to many years of lobbying by the seed industry. What the companies really wanted was to have industrial patents on seeds. Patents give absolute rights to control all uses of the seed, both for planting and for further breeding. But at the time many governments felt that patents would give industry too much power over farmers. The UPOV PVP was created as a compromise. From the beginning, it gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year, and other breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not, to develop a new one. During the 1980s, the development of genetic engineering attracted large transnational companies from the pharmaceuticals and chemical sectors into plant breeding. With their much greater lobbying power, they began a new offensive to strengthen monopoly rights on plant breeding in developed countries. First, they got industrial patents on plants bred with genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques. This meant, in practice, that they got the absolute monopoly that conventional breeders had been refused two decades earlier. Second, the UPOV PVP rights were radically expanded for all plant varieties, GE or conventional. Since 1991, the PVP monopoly has applied not only to seed multiplication but also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. The previously unlimited right for farmers to save seed for the following year's planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if the national government allows it can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm. Third, these much stronger monopoly rights are required for membership in the WTO, as already described. This is the starting point for the new lobby offensive now being prepared by the global seed industry. The goal this time is to remove the few remaining differences between the PVP system and patents, so that companies will have an absolute monopoly over seeds all over the world, regardless of which legal system is used, for all crops and all countries. THE REAL TARGET - FARM-SAVED SEED Farm-saved seed will be a primary target of this offensive. At least two-thirds of the global crop area is currently planted with farm-saved seed every year. In many developing countries, it represents 80--90 per cent of all seed used, but even in developed countries it commonly accounts for a large share (30--60 per cent). If farmers were legally forced to plant all of this area with commercial seed, it could easily mean a doubling of seed industry turnover, that is, an extra US$20 billion annually -- all taken out of farmers' pockets and delivered to transnational giants such as DuPont, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto. Another key industry demand will be to restrict or eliminate the freedom to use PVP-protected varieties for breeding -- the other major difference between the UPOV system and patents. The purpose is simply to block competition. If nobody else is allowed to improve on a variety until after the term of protection -- 20 years or so -- a seed company will be able to sell the unimproved variety for a much longer period, and postpone the cost of new research. The net effect: increased profits for the PVP owner, higher seed prices and fewer new varieties for farmers. The
Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
So, when the farmers stop farming becauser they can't buy the seed, are the big *head honchos* going to go hungry too?? Seems the only route left open is to grow yer own - they can't toss everyone in the cooler for having seeds... remember - we are the many - they are the few - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's planting. This briefing traces the recent discussions within the seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable from a patent. BACKGROUND Seed companies already have strong legal support from governments. In many countries, seed laws require farmers to use only certified seed of government-approved varieties. That seed is often available only from commercial seed companies. A rapidly increasing number of governments also grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety protection (PVP). Until recently, both seed patents and PVP existed only in developed countries. But since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in 1994, all member governments must provide some form of monopoly rights on seeds. There is now enormous pressure on developing countries to adopt the developed country models. Many have been persuaded to join the international PVP system, managed by UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants). In the past ten years, UPOV has more than doubled its membership. Most new members are developing countries. The UPOV system was originally set up in 1961, in response to many years of lobbying by the seed industry. What the companies really wanted was to have industrial patents on seeds. Patents give absolute rights to control all uses of the seed, both for planting and for further breeding. But at the time many governments felt that patents would give industry too much power over farmers. The UPOV PVP was created as a compromise. From the beginning, it gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year, and other breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not, to develop a new one. During the 1980s, the development of genetic engineering attracted large transnational companies from the pharmaceuticals and chemical sectors into plant breeding. With their much greater lobbying power, they began a new offensive to strengthen monopoly rights on plant breeding in developed countries. First, they got industrial patents on plants bred with genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques. This meant, in practice, that they got the absolute monopoly that conventional breeders had been refused two decades earlier. Second, the UPOV PVP rights were radically expanded for all plant varieties, GE or conventional. Since 1991, the PVP monopoly has applied not only to seed multiplication but also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. The previously unlimited right for farmers to save seed for the following year's planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if the national government allows it can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm. Third, these much stronger monopoly rights are required for membership in the WTO, as already described. This is the starting point for the new lobby offensive now being prepared by the global seed industry. The goal this time is to remove the few remaining differences between the PVP system and patents, so that companies will have an absolute monopoly over seeds all over the world, regardless of which legal system is used, for all crops and all countries. THE REAL TARGET - FARM-SAVED SEED Farm-saved seed will be a primary target of this offensive. At least two-thirds of the global crop area is currently planted with farm-saved seed every year. In many developing countries, it represents 80--90 per cent of all seed used, but even in developed countries it commonly accounts for a large share (30--60 per cent). If farmers were legally forced to plant all of this area with commercial seed, it could easily mean a doubling of seed industry turnover, that is, an extra US$20 billion annually -- all taken out of farmers' pockets and delivered to transnational giants such as DuPont, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto. Another key industry demand will be to restrict or eliminate the freedom
Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed
Does anyone know of a good source of seeds, especially near Charlotte, NC? --Randall - Original Message - From: A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed So, when the farmers stop farming becauser they can't buy the seed, are the big *head honchos* going to go hungry too?? Seems the only route left open is to grow yer own - they can't toss everyone in the cooler for having seeds... remember - we are the many - they are the few - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Seed Companies Want To Ban Farm-saved Seed New from GRAIN February 2007 http://www.grain.org/?nfg=470 SEED COMPANIES WANT TO BAN FARM-SAVED SEED A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's planting. This briefing traces the recent discussions within the seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable from a patent. BACKGROUND Seed companies already have strong legal support from governments. In many countries, seed laws require farmers to use only certified seed of government-approved varieties. That seed is often available only from commercial seed companies. A rapidly increasing number of governments also grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety protection (PVP). Until recently, both seed patents and PVP existed only in developed countries. But since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in 1994, all member governments must provide some form of monopoly rights on seeds. There is now enormous pressure on developing countries to adopt the developed country models. Many have been persuaded to join the international PVP system, managed by UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants). In the past ten years, UPOV has more than doubled its membership. Most new members are developing countries. The UPOV system was originally set up in 1961, in response to many years of lobbying by the seed industry. What the companies really wanted was to have industrial patents on seeds. Patents give absolute rights to control all uses of the seed, both for planting and for further breeding. But at the time many governments felt that patents would give industry too much power over farmers. The UPOV PVP was created as a compromise. From the beginning, it gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year, and other breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not, to develop a new one. During the 1980s, the development of genetic engineering attracted large transnational companies from the pharmaceuticals and chemical sectors into plant breeding. With their much greater lobbying power, they began a new offensive to strengthen monopoly rights on plant breeding in developed countries. First, they got industrial patents on plants bred with genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques. This meant, in practice, that they got the absolute monopoly that conventional breeders had been refused two decades earlier. Second, the UPOV PVP rights were radically expanded for all plant varieties, GE or conventional. Since 1991, the PVP monopoly has applied not only to seed multiplication but also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. The previously unlimited right for farmers to save seed for the following year's planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if the national government allows it can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm. Third, these much stronger monopoly rights are required for membership in the WTO, as already described. This is the starting point for the new lobby offensive now being prepared by the global seed industry. The goal this time is to remove the few remaining differences between the PVP system and patents, so that companies will have an absolute monopoly over seeds all over the world, regardless of which legal system is used, for all crops and all countries. THE REAL TARGET - FARM-SAVED SEED Farm-saved seed will be a primary target of this offensive. At least two-thirds of the global crop area is currently planted with farm-saved seed every year. In many developing countries, it represents 80--90 per cent of all seed used, but even in developed countries it commonly accounts for a large share (30--60 per cent). If farmers were legally forced to plant all of this area with commercial seed
