> They elect to do that because the crop yields are significantly better and justify the cost.

That is correct. They are so much better ( and I am in awe of that technology) that outside of some niches (depending on the crop) as a farmer you cannot afford not to use them. But now your farmer-timeframe of a few years is up against a 20 year artificial monopoly in the form of a patent. And all your peers are facing the same situation. This isn't a situation where you can just decide to do whatever you want.

You suddenly find yourself dependent on a third party that knows your situation exactly and will try to extract the most amount of value from you - trying to capture your profit while keeping you healthy enough to keep being a customer.

This skews towards the seed supplier.

▲

bluGill an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The major important gmo patents are expiring close to it. If that is your argument it isn't relevant. There are new patents but they are not hard to work around.

▲

parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> as a farmer you cannot afford not to use them.

Yes, because it's a good product.

Farmer's can't afford not to use tractors or artificial irrigation either.

It's not sinister to develop a product that is better than the competition.

> This skews towards the seed supplier.

Right up until someone else makes a better product.

	▲	yosamino 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Right up until someone else makes a better product. Yes. A different seed supplier. My point isn't that it's morally wrong to make a better product. My point is that the way it's set up is that those who are in the position to make a better patented-product are in an unbalancedly better position towards the people who use the product to create something as fundamentally important as food.