alt Hacker News> 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.
Replies
> 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.
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.