I didn’t realize this until recently, but apparently if a company or store labels sweet potatoes as “yams,” they can get in trouble with the United States Department of Agriculture, which views sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) and yams (Dioscorea spp.) as distinct commodities. So if you feel a product label (or bin label at the store) gets the identification wrong, just snap a photograph and email to the USDA’s Misbranding and Misrepresentation Office. The responding officer then gets in touch with the company or store and ask the labels be updated. Of course, it’s probably often true that labels are just inadvertently misleading, such as in stores where produce managers don’t know what a yam is — the USDA would never fine those individuals, I suspect. If enough people reported these instances, the confusion over yams and sweet potatoes would drop, and fast. Less confusion is always a good goal, but this getting ridding of the “yam” slang would be extra good because it makes life a tad safer for those with sweet potato allergies (they might eat one if it is labelled “yam”).
Tag Archives: USDA
This post is for people tracking the bizarre ethical slide of The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc. (CPBR).
As you probably know from my earlier posts, CPBR sends out a yearly invitation to plant biotechnology researchers to submit grant proposals. Part of the emailed PDF has instructions on how to make a scientific poster, and a big part of that section was created by copying/pasting text from my page on the topic (but with no quotation marks and no attribution).
Because I happen to have an official copyright registration on my poster design page, the PDF is in violation of U.S. copyright law. So, in addition to being able to sue CPBR rather easily, I can can also use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to send Notifications of Copyright Infringement (NOCIs) to have the CPBR document (PDF and any paper copies) destroyed.
So here’s what I’ve done.
- I’ve asked every member university to delete the PDF when received from CPBR. In other words, the grants administration office will no longer forward that PDF to faculty on campus. Because CPBR forbids member institutions from posting the PDF online (don’t ask me why), this means CPBR will not receive grant applications in the future. Note that asking universities to help protect my copyright is a friendly request — I was not accusing the universities of anything. It’s just like asking them to help protect copyrighted movies that might be illegally shared by students. With one exception (University of Minnesota), they are happy to help. The University of Minnesota’s lawyers insist email forwarding of PDFs is exempt from copyright law (lingering effect of cold temperature?).
- I’ve asked every member company to do the same.
- I’ve informed the Fraud Alert representatives of the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agencies that CPBR is violating U.S. Copyright Law and should stop receiving Federal funds (DOE has given them almost $23 million, for example).
- I’ve informed CPBR’s internet provider that CPBR is using email to send content that infringes on my copyright.
All of the above could have been avoided if CPBR simply linked to my Designing Conference Posters page. I love it when people link to my page. Alternatively, if CPBR wanted to quote a sentence or two, that would be totally fine. Here are two examples (book, website) of how to use quotation marks and attribution.
“Yet the politics of shipwreck can be avoided, I think, if we can construct a theory of feminist criticism within the framework of a general theory of the critical process that is neither purely objective nor purely intuitive; in that way, its processes can be examined beside, compared with, and contrasted to other branches of criticism with some degree of dispassionate distance.” [translate]
— Schumacher, D. 1989. Subjectivities: a theory of the critical process. Pages 29-36 in Feminist Literary Criticism: Explorations in Theory, edited by Josephine Donovan. University Press of Kentucky.
“CPBR speeds the transfer of plant-related biotechnologies from the research laboratory to the marketplace, expanding economic opportunities through university research and global networking. Its highly competitive project selection process includes … industrial evaluation of research concepts to insure [sic] industrial relevance … ”
— The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc. Retrieved 22 March 2014, from http://www.cpbr.org/content.html.
It’s really odd that CPBR didn’t just use quotations and attribution. The CEO has a PhD in literature, and CPBR’s website has images and quotes that are all nicely attributed. Plus the core mission of the company is to foster commercialization of the intellectual property of participating scientists — and CPBR has IP lawyers on retainer for that very purpose. There are, in short, so many reasons why this is not a company you’d expect to plagiarize or to infringe on copyrights.
Some photographs to get you excited about starches on Thanksgiving. If you’re curious about the difference between yams, sweet potatoes, and potatoes, please refer to my page, “Yams and sweet potatoes are not potatoes.”