I worded it so carefully to not have an argument, just for illustration, but...

Yes, you are correct, and you are not contradicting me: This is a system that makes sense on the surface. It's economically superior to pay some more money to a seed supplier to get a better yield on my fields.

But this economic advantage is captured by the seed supplier after all farmers moved to this new system where you are no longer able to rely on the previous' harvest seeds. Once everyone is on the economically superior system, the seed supplier can start capturing more of the value that is created by farming.

The point here is that Monsanto creates a superior yield in a crop. All your farmer peers move to use it, and now you have to too or get priced out of the market.

hence: > skew towards concentrating money towards those who already live a comfortable life. > skew

The word "farmers" is doing some heavy lifting here - might be some multinational, might be a small family making a living.

The point is not that the market is pricing out inefficient farms, the point is that it turns a millennia old practice on it's head and using government force to enable monopolies to remove competition.

Farmers use it because their time horizon is 1-5 years, but the government monopoly on seeds is more like 20 years.

It's skewed.

Easy to disagree and argue with these points, but the original question was why there are people opposed to GMOs and while GMOs are not the only patented organisms they are the most obvious for people to have concerns over the economics