Seeds of farm prohibited by the UMP !! Ashamed !!

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 29/11/11, 23:46

antoinet111 wrote:It is not the seed companies that pose problems of fraud towards the creators, but the farmers and the seeds of farms ...


I understood this!

A "breeder's tax" on any sale of "selected" seeds grown by the farmer seems to me the best solution.

The state must still reverse ...

Do you work in the private or public sector if it's not intrusive?
0 x
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1




by antoinet111 » 30/11/11, 00:03

Thanks for editing, I would do this the next quote this way.

it is difficult for me to associate my nickname with my profession, but the funny thing is that my box is private but bump for the state.

after personally, I am the work of a small private.

sorry for not being more specific in public.

MP
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.
Down the talkers and ceiling fans!
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 30/11/11, 00:39

No problem for discretion, here we are not on facebook, discretion is allowed (and even desired) : Cheesy:

So if the State is your main client, it could very well pay you back a% of its revenues ...

Exactly as the IFP receives a micro% on each liter of fuel sold in France ...

I do not see the problem.

All this without prohibition, no liberticide law, nor incitement to fraud!
0 x
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1




by antoinet111 » 30/11/11, 00:44

the box receives royalties on the sales of our varieties, but when a farmer uses seeds from his harvest to replant them without declaring it then we do not gain anything and fraud begins.
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.

Down the talkers and ceiling fans!
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 30/11/11, 01:15

It is for this reason that a (tiny) tax on the tonnage sold of the variety in question would resolve the question of funding for research !!

Am I wrong?

It is much more "moral" to tax a production than a resource ...

But it's true that morality ... we don't care a bit now ... so sorry ... :|
0 x
User avatar
minguinhirigue
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 447
Registration: 01/05/08, 21:30
Location: Strasbourg
x 1




by minguinhirigue » 30/11/11, 08:18

Thank you Christophe for this little morning regulatory watch.
I agree with you in principle, the important thing is to ensure an easy recipe that does not limit the resource.

If I agree with the remuneration of "artists" who have worked for a long time to select a seed, I do not agree that these seeds are "terminator" plants or that there is a total ban on reusing seeds. .

We are indeed gradually moving towards a serious decline in the genetic variety of plans cultivated for food, it is a whole part of our agricultural and culinary culture that is disappearing (some children only know the granny and golden apples, we would have to wake up !), and this can only continue if 99% of French agricultural production is subject to a ban on "individual reproduction".

A low but constant tax like that proposed by Christophe seems to be a good compromise. It would allow any farmer wishing to sell a production under a protected species name to pay a tax paying the seed companies.

Architect, I am also in defense of the right to intellectual property, but in essence, our profession, like yours, is based on the selection of pre-existing entities belonging to the common good. Thus, to prohibit the reproduction of houses with two sides of roofs on the pretext that it has been patented, is in my opinion a moral crime. By cons prohibiting the sale of strictly identical copies can be understood. The same should be true for plant species!

Furthermore, did you know that if architects applied their right to intellectual property, you could no longer take souvenir photos to post on Facebook in front of many buildings!
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 30/11/11, 09:11

A low but constant tax like that proposed by Christophe seems to be a good compromise. It would allow any farmer wishing to sell a production under a protected species name to pay a tax paying the seed companies.
So only when the seeds in question are the result of research. Farmers (and particularly organic) are trying to find seeds of rustic species whose patent belongs to nature and which therefore should not be subject to taxation. Otherwise we end up with the Monsanto policy which pollutes rustic seeds and then claims royalties as a consequence of its contamination.
0 x
clasou
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 553
Registration: 05/05/08, 11:33




by clasou » 30/11/11, 10:30

Hello,
As far as I'm concerned, against the fact of any tax, however small it may be.
The living must not be a source of income, it is life.
One solution is to make it an object like Monsanto or something else that includes a sterility gene.
With obligations towards the living, if your GMOs reproduce and pollute a nearby field, charge the creators to pay the damage, and not as at the moment where the peasant is tracking down, because he would have trafficked.
Because if not the goal is to be obliged to register your variety in the official catalog, and if a peg in his corner arrived voluntarily or not at the same selection, he will not have the means to defend himself.

One solution, in this case the farmer is contractually linked to a food manufacturer, and in this case as for microsoft software.
The latter has never done anything to make this software non-reproducible, on the contrary.
But on arrival he made a fortune because given how this virus (as some people call it) spread. Because such a big market that all those who want to work for a big market are on microsoft.
Software, printer and other, and microsoft charges them a fee.
In this case a restaurateur will mark on his tomato card xxx fee.
And will pay a fee because it will use proprietary products.
a + claude
0 x
clasou
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 553
Registration: 05/05/08, 11:33




by clasou » 30/11/11, 10:42

And he is now sleeping for how long.
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/ne ... #xtor=ES-6
a + claude
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 30/11/11, 11:22

Of course Janic! That's the idea: no reason to tax a crop on unselected seed (but they are 99% I think, except the one that plants spelled or alfalfa and still not on!)!

minguinhirigue wrote:Furthermore, did you know that if architects applied their right to intellectual property, you could no longer take souvenir photos to post on Facebook in front of many buildings!


Little parenthesis ...

If you use it commercially, I am not at all certain that this is not the case ... However, Facebook does "trade with your information" ... Finally, we are more close to that: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post217668.html#217668

What I am sure is that a director who films the Eiffel Tower must, I believe, pay € 30 to the city of Paris (or to the Eiffel company) for "image rights" ... TV documentary I don't know, I guess not ...

But you have to be more aware of the precise facts than me at this level!
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 347 guests