HR 193 - Patented seed tax

[Ladydy8]

I just found out that HR 193 has been introduced by Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9], on 1/4/2013. This bill would require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting of patented seeds to register with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay fees set by the Secretary for retaining such seed, and for other purposes.

My question...When you consider that your heirloom garden could be cross-pollinated with genetic material from some other nearby, patented plant, you could be in violation of patent law and not even know it. Would you be subjected to registering your seeds?

What impact would this law have on home grown seeds/plants?

What are the "other purposes"? If I were to sell produce from my garden at a local market would I be subjected to added fees?

The text for the bill is not yet available so I can't answer the question. But I have not been in the loop for long on GMO fights, etc. so I am unclear of the intent with this bill.

Can anyone answer?

[vette91]

I'd just like to say that if you are just gardening for yourself/immediate family or giving small amounts of food away to other people, I doubt anything will happen. I highly doubt the DOA is going to go out and test all of your fruits and veggies to verify that they are breaking the law.

If you are selling large amounts of food to other(farmer's market, small farmer, internet, whatever) it is more likely going to be a problem. I know this doesn't really answer your question but its something...

[madscotsman26]

I Would Think there would be some sort of Grandfather Clause involved, If not it will come into play during the first Court battle.

[Dragonid]

I can't even begin to understand how this would be any of the govt's business. I can understand paying a fee to the patent holder for extending the use of their IP, but why the heck would there be any kind of fee paid to the govt? Absurdity.

[Systematic Mechanic]

It just another attempt to make more people poor and have less freedom.
It's absurd.

[doh]

Monsanto has had great success in suing the pants, and underwear, off farmers that were next to those that used their patented seeds. Won millions of dollars of judgements against farmers that did nothing wrong. The whole "it's nature you bone-head" idea didn't work out either.

I bet you money that this Rep gets money from Monsanto or another company.

[Dragonid]

Originally Posted by doh

I bet you money that this Rep gets money from Monsanto or another company.

It seems counter to the interests of the seed companies. I would assume the opposite, that it is backed by GMO haters, who want to add a bunch of stupid taxes to the use of patented seed.

The seed companies want the money for themselves. They don't want the gov dipping into their profits, and adding costs to the use of their product.

[Gardog]

Soon the helicopters will be flying over your house, not looking fof pot but for vegetables.

[Tackleberry41]

The seed companies just see it as a way to drive more people to buy their products, same way monsanto does. You buy their seed you don't have to mess with the taxes.

It would also make a convenient place for seed companies to look so they knew who to go after for 'stealing' their pollen.

Big ag simply wants to make it so people have to buy their products. There was the big deal couple years ago that was going to require people with chickens to get RFID trackers for their flocks, an expensive proposition for backyard people. And conveniently big operations were exempted. Drive up the price of doing things yourself, they drive more people to buy their products at the store. So you can pretty much guarantee industry is the one who came up with this idea.

[Borsch Dorks Gorge]

It is my understanding that anyone Monsanto has perused for illegal use of technology have been knowingly exploiting such technology - for instance using glyphos on the crop - why do that unless you know it is RR?

Anyway, my take on why she is proposing this - the phrase "and for other purposes" is in the text. What other purposes could their be? Look at H.R. 307 (112th): Seed Availability and Competition Act of 2011 proposed by Kaptur. It died at committee.

The big thing in there is the ability to charge a punitive tax on imported GM. HR193 is what makes a tax on imported GM products legal and acceptable due to international trade laws and treaties.

It is protectionism pure and simple.

[Synical1]

From congress.gov....

H.R.193 - To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting of patented seeds to register with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay fees set by the Secretary for retaining such seed, and for other purposes.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...house-bill/193

From what I gather of the bill, it essentially state that if you're collecting and/or saving "patented seeds" (most likely GMO) from your current harvest, you must register these patented seeds with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay the appropriate taxes and/or fees. What those fees are, assuming the bill actually goes anywhere, have yet to be determined.

From what little there is to go on, it should be safe to say that heirloom and other non-patented seeds would be excluded from this requirement. And, one could argue (to what extent? I don't know) that cross breeds of patented and non-patented plants are a new design and, perhaps, not subject to the original patent protection.

The "and for other purposes" is, unfortunately, the usual congressional gimmickry to leave the door open to allow them slip in pork or other legislation they may feel is appropriate at the time it is voted on.

[Harmless Drudge]

Originally Posted by Ladydy8

I just found out that HR 193 has been introduced by Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9], on 1/4/2013. This bill would require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting of patented seeds to register with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay fees set by the Secretary for retaining such seed, and for other purposes.

My question...When you consider that your heirloom garden could be cross-pollinated with genetic material from some other nearby, patented plant, you could be in violation of patent law and not even know it. Would you be subjected to registering your seeds?

What impact would this law have on home grown seeds/plants?

What are the "other purposes"? If I were to sell produce from my garden at a local market would I be subjected to added fees?

The text for the bill is not yet available so I can't answer the question. But I have not been in the loop for long on GMO fights, etc. so I am unclear of the intent with this bill.

Can anyone answer?

This law is not meant to be enforced for its own sake. It is meant to be held in reserve and used against whomever the government wants to "get" for something.

There is no law against being a self-sufficient homesteader, but they can fine you out of existence and make an example of you and paint you as a nutjob.

[jronwood]

The whole patented seed thing is just SUCH a mess. It is CRAZY just CRAZY. To see some seed cleaner taken to court just because he cleans a farmers seed that HAPPENED to get wind blown pollen on it from someone using patented seed in a field nearby is LUDICROUS.


Saw the video FoodInc.......GESH what is it coming to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.

[saln]

Like every other Federal agency, DOA is turning into a money grab. Time to think of more less visable alternatives to our farming styles. They have already dug into most that are on their radar, slowly trying to shut them down through whatever means. It is becomming senseless to fight in court. They will delay and delay until you go broke. Keep to your "select" contacts and speak to no others, or expect to pay more at some point.

[cygvan]

check out the documentary "david vs monsanto"

it will make you boil

[sachson]

Eiee. Monsanto and their lobbyists is gonna geet us!! Open pollinated, heirlooms... Save your own seed. F'em

[Trilect]

this wouldn't be ment for people growing medical weed by chance? it sounds like that was its intent.