It doesn't take gene splicing to create a new variety you just need to use selective breeding which anyone can do and people have been doing for 1000s of years [1]. My understanding is that most of the varieties produced by Universities are selectively bred and not necessarily genetically modified.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

As logfromblammo notes, this is a very old thing. Perhaps as old as agriculture itself.

That said, I see nothing wrong with the branding, as an education and promotion drive. If it gets more gardens in, all the better.

(I try to beat the "input costs" with my home container drip system, and not abuse the planet by growing $400 vanity tomatoes. Recycle, reuse, buy on closeout.)

> At first I wondered how much of a difference it could or would make since while in software anyone can code in their free time, how many people can splice a gene?

Lots of people have the skill, and there are lots of universities and private labs (though probably few private individuals, compared to the parallel case with software) with the required hardware and facilities.

The skill isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting the money to make the plant.

The problem is that molecular biology often doesn't work. So it takes lots of time and experiments to get it right. Which costs money. Lots of money.

> The skill isn't the hard part.

Right, which is why I said that fewer (though many) people have the other resources.

> The problem is that molecular biology often doesn't work. So it takes lots of time and experiments to get it right. Which costs money. Lots of money.

And there's lots of people doing it now.

The real question isn't "does anyone have the resources to use these", its "can anyone come up with a business model where it makes sense to use these for further development".