No Patents on Seeds

To be clear, I’m against patents on seeds and all other forms of life.  At the same time, I’m against the goals of the campaign called No Patents on Seeds.

All Seeds

The website of this campaign makes it appear as though they are against all forms of patents.  The petition they are asking people to sign, also appears to oppose all patents on life.  Privately however, they are lobbying for an end to patents only on conventionally bred seeds, arguing this is a necessary starting point.

Note that nothing on the website, not the petition or their statements, exclude the possibility of them lobbying solely for the removal of patents on conventionally bred plants.  It all comes down to trusting or not trusting the people behind the campaign.

If GMOs are excluded from this campaign, as it appears now, this will mean GMOs have an enormous marketing advantage over traditionally bred plants.  This will be a much worse situation than what we have now.

An Error in Implementation

Patents on seeds were more or less forced on the seed industry from the pharmaceutical industry, who wanted to ensure their inventions were fully patentable.  This came about by way of more or less secret negotiations between the EU and US, in a similar way TTIP and other trade agreements have been arranged.

In a similar way, the EU patent office was created.  The EU patent office has more or less diplomatic status.  Technically speaking, even police are not allowed to enter the building uninvited, and it exists outside of EU law, almost like a foreign embassy.  The reason for this was to insure there could be no ‘political interference’ in the issuing of patents.

As it turns out, there was a mistake in the implementation of seed patents, and conventionally bred plants were accidentally included.  What happened was they did exclude seeds resulting from conventional breeding, but forgot to exclude the resulting products grown from the seeds.  Now the seed industry itself is caught in the middle of this legal construction that was intended to prevent any changes to the operation of the EU patent office.

Plant Breeding

Plant breeders everywhere depend on the free exchange of genetic materials.  Here in the Netherlands are a number of companies involved in industrial plant breeding, and they all more or less freely exchange genetic resources with one another.  Independent plant breeders also usually exchange material.

As soon as patents are allowed on conventional breeding, determining exactly what’s patented, and who owns the patents, becomes almost impossible.  This is an enormous problem for the seed industry.  It’s also an enormous problem for independent plant breeders, but given the problems for the seed industry are more serious, I think we should accept this for the time being.

Industry Lobby Efforts

The campaign No Patents on Seeds was started in the Netherlands by Bionext, the lobby organ for industrial organic food, and is supported by the non-organic industrial food sector as well.  There are intense lobby efforts by these groups in Brussels now, but only concerning conventionally bred seeds.

If you support this campaign, you are supporting the lobby efforts of the food industry.

Webs of Trust

One of the issues here is who do you trust.  Since by reading this, you know this campaign is flawed, it’s really a good idea to familiarize yourself with the organizations behind it.  The people and organizations who signed the petition are not necessarily bad, as the petition itself is not all that bad.  The organizations that are putting themselves forward for the purpose of misrepresenting the intentions of the petition are the ones to be concerned with.

The food movement in general does not need these blurring of lines between the food industry and activist movements.

Je Suis Amos

Warning: Foul mouthed teenager

Amos Yee, 16 years old, was found guilty today by a Singapore court for insulting Christianity in this video.  This is widely seen as not so much Christianity, but rather insulting the late leader of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew.

Amos is a Blogger, and among other things has posted recently about his complete lack of repentance and dismissal of his bail conditions.

Any penalty Amos receives has to be seen as Singapore admitting it’s own faults to the world.  Stating your own opinion should never be a crime.  All charges against Amos should be dropped.

Amos doesn’t know it yet, but he’s going to grow up to be a mover and shaker.

I am not Charlie

As someone who publishes controversial material, and has even been threatened for doing it, I was really quite shocked and saddened by the events in France the last few days.

Of course violence and threats of violence are always wrong.  It’s also very important to stand up for freedom of speech, and the free expression of ideas and opinions.

At the same time, together with free speech comes responsibility for self restraint.  We all know for example that showing hate for Jews, or blacks, eastern Europeans or promoting Nazism, is nearly universally unacceptable, even illegal in many countries.  We sometimes forget that Muslims are people too, and deserve the same respect as everyone else.  No one benefits by the frequent publishing of racial or religious slurs, and the sort of anger these can generate puts us all at risk.

Abbie Hoffman once said:

Free speech is the right to shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire.

Free speech can’t always be about pushing every boundary possible.  Free speech has to be about criticizing ideas, politicians, corporations or societies at large, but not attacking ethnic or religious groups.  It’s up to all of us as a society to enforce this, and not to fan the flames of intolerance.

My thoughts are fully with the people of Charlie Hebdo, their families and friends, the other journalists and political satirists, that put their own safety on the line in their jobs, but not the intolerance that lies behind them.

Light Bulb Review

I guess some of us knew it would happen eventually, but normal light bulbs are legal once again in Europe, and becoming more available.  I just bought some the other day from De Gloeilampen Winkel here in the Netherlands, and I thought I would write a review.  I paid €1,65 per bulb, with a minimum purchase of 10 per wattage, and free shipping over €50.  I hope they come down in price soon!

bulb1

There is an exemption in the EU light bulb ban for ‘rough service lamps’, bulbs built to operate while vibrating.  This is a Reinforced Construction or RC lamp.  Some of the bulbs are labelled that they are intended for a marine environment.  None of them have a brand name.

Here’s a closer view of the specifications.

 

bulb4

Notice they are rated for 3000 hours, which is 3 times longer than the bulbs commonly available here just before the ban came into force.  This makes the price a little more palatable, and similar to the price per hour of pre-ban bulbs.

bulb2

Manufacturer Energy Rating: E

bulb3

Real Life Energy Rating:  A++

  • Since mostly the bulbs are to be operated in a space warmed by central heating, the bulbs are 100% efficient.  Energy is given off in the form of light and heat, and any heat given off reduces the load on the central heating by a like amount.
  • No energy needed for recycling, and it’s not necessary to take them to a recycling center — possibly even by car.  Bulbs can be discarded in normal household waste.
  • Bulbs can be manufactured locally, and it’s not necessary to transport them from China.
  • Manufacturing process is simpler and less energy intensive than ‘low energy bulbs’.
  • Longer life means less frequent replacements are needed.

Functionality

It’s a light bulb, and does everything you might expect a light bulb to do.

Long Life

Historically, manufacturers of light bulbs have had the problem that long life bulbs mean loss of profit.  This is because they stay in service too long and consumers don’t need to keep rebuying them.  Singer, the sewing machine company had a similar problem, because the products they built were too reliable.  In the case of Singer, they had to buy back some of their older machines, so consumers would have to buy some of the newer less reliable ones.

In the case of light bulbs, manufacturers have been building them to glow brighter, so they would burn out faster.  This is the motivation for the energy efficient bulbs, followed by the complete ban.

Leading up to the ban 1000 hour bulbs were common, and these are 3000 hour bulbs.  10.000-20.000 hour bulbs are very feasible, and 100.000 hour bulbs are not out of the question.  As consumers, this is what we want and should look for.  They should not necessarily cost more.

Some Final Comments

  • No flickering, slow warm up or fading with age.
  • Fully dimmable
  • No toxic components
  • Pleasant light spectrum
  • This bulb was not labelled with country of origin.  Research your bulbs and buy locally!  Unlabelled should be assumed to be from China.
  • These bulbs are rated for 235v, but the power in Europe is 230v.  This probably means the bulbs will withstand voltage spikes better, have a longer life, but also probably give off slightly less than the rated number of lumens.  I consider this a good thing.
  • It’s obvious in other ways the consumer energy ratings are intended to mislead consumers.  For example here, diesel cars often get lower ratings, even though they get better mileage and have lower carbon emissions.  Electric cars often get better ratings, even though energy used in manufacture and disposal are much higher.  Use your head instead of trusting energy ratings!