Patenting Life

Users who are viewing this thread

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
When I say patent life, I mean seeds. From genetically modified to even just the regular every day potato seed; companies are patenting life. It's hard to understand what this means. This means, that if a company can prove that their patented plants genes, got into a farmers field, regardless if on purpose or not, they own that farmers seeds and currently grown products from those seeds.

Should corporations have the ability to patent life?
 
  • 13
    Replies
  • 361
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Here's a story that helps explain the problem:

ALBANY, NY — The First Lutheran Church was the setting for the talk by Percy Schmeiser, the Canadian farmer being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement. Speaking to a standing room only crowd of more than 300, Percy spoke plainly and clearly about the lawsuit and what it means to everyone in the world.
Percy described himself as a seed saver and seed developer. A seed saver is a farmer who saves seed from one year to the next so that he has seed to plant the next year, and does not need to buy seed. His crop was canola, also known as rapeseed. He and his wife Louise spent 50 years developing canola seeds that would grow well in his part of the world — Bruno, Saskatchewan, about 250 miles north of the border of Montana. His farm is about 1400 acres in size, an average size farm for the plains.
Percy was mayor of his village for more than 25 years, was elected to the provincial parliament and for his entire life has worked for rules and laws to benefit farmers.
Around 1995, Percy told his wife he was thinking of retirement. Louise expressed concerns about what he would do with himself, so Percy decided to keep farming for a while longer.
What to do with his spare time was decided in 1998, when Monsanto sued Percy for patent infringement. Monsanto said that it had found GMO (genetically modified organism) canola seed in Percy’s field, and that Percy had to pay a $15 an acre fee for using its patented GMO seed.
Percy never had anything to do with Monsanto. He never purchased seed from Monsanto. He was concerned that Monsanto seed had contaminated his farm. The GMO canola plants got into his fields by the wind blowing pollen or seed onto his land.
It took two years for the pre-trail motions and paper-work to be completed. During this time, Monsanto dropped their charge that Percy had illegally obtained the GMO seed. Because this was a patent case, the case would not be heard by a jury but by one federal judge. The trial took two and one-half weeks.
The federal judge decided that it did not matter how the GMO crops got into his field, he must pay Monsanto their fee of $15/acre. In addition, the judge ordered that Percy pay Monsanto all of the profits from his 1998 crop, and that he must turn over all of the plants and seeds to Monsanto. Two of Percy’s fields were not contaminated with Monsanto GMOs and 60% of the GMOs Monsanto found were in the ditch by the road.
Percy appealed his case to the federal Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling against Percy by the first judge.
The last resort was the Supreme Court. As in the US, the Canadian Supreme Court only reviews a very few of the cases it is asked to. The Supreme Court heard the case the week before Percy came to speak, on January 20. Because it is a complicated case, the Court reserved decision. It may be as long as six months before the court hands down a ruling.
This ruling may have world-wide consequences. This is the first case of its kind in the world. Though obviously the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court is not binding on other countries, it will set a precedent that other countries may look to when confronted with similar cases.
Percy has been to every continent in the world except Antarctica (no need to tell the penguins about GMO crops!) to talk about his case and the issue of GMO crops. This is much more than a simple patent issue. Percy asks, Can living organisms be owned by corporate patents? What about a farmer’s right to grow organic crops? What about a farmer’s right to use his own seed? And,
Who can patent life?
In this case, it is a single gene put into the canola seed that makes the canola plant immune to the herbicide roundup. Because Monsanto put this single gene into the canola plant, does this mean that Monsanto can patent the entire plant?
Percy then went on to explain why Monsanto become the one of the biggest seed companies when it used to be one of the biggest chemical companies. About five years ago, the patent on Roundup ran out. Roundup is an herbicide sold by Monsanto. It constitutes 45% of Monsanto’s sales and 25% of Monsanto’s profits. Monsanto went on a buying spree and spent $2 billion to buy seed companies.
Monsanto went on to develop genetically modified seeds that were immune to Roundup. They sold these seeds to farmers, promising a greater yield and less need to use chemicals.
Percy described Monsanto’s tactics in selling seeds to farmers. Farmers are not allowed to save their seed from year to year, they must buy the seed from Monsanto. The farmer must permit the Monsanto police force to go on their land for three years, even though the contract is for one. And, the contracts states that the farmer will not sue Monsanto for any reason.
The Monsanto police are often former Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Percy has photographed them coming onto a farmer’s field, without the farmer’s permission, and taking samples of the canola plants.
According to Percy, for farmers that do not buy seed from Monsanto, Monsanto will fly a helicopter over a farmer’s field and drop some Roundup herbicide. Then, a couple of weeks later, Monsanto will return. If the canola plants are still alive, that means they contain the patented gene. Monsanto will send farmers a letter asking for payment of the “Technology Fees”; Percy called these “extortion” letters.
What are some of the bigger issues with GMO plants? First, there is no such thing as containment. The GMO plants produce seeds that are spread through wind, flood, birds, and the pollen is spread through bees. Once these organisms have been released into the environment, there is no calling them back. Next, there is no co-existence; these GMO plants destroy both organic and conventional farmers crops. Percy said, “I cannot grow canola. Choice is taken away. Can you recall a life-form from the environment? No.”
This fight against Monsanto has been hard on Percy. He is 73, and his wife is 72; they have five children. He has a judgement against him for $153,000, and has $300,000 in legal bills. But, he said that he and his wife decided they had to stand up to for farmer’s rights; that they had to stand up to Monsanto.
By the way, Percy notes, no GMO food is sold at the Monsanto headquarters in London.
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Michael Crichton has a very good book along these lines, I think it was called Next.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Here's a story that helps explain the problem:

If it as the farmer described- patented seeds blowing onto his property, then Monsanto does not have a case. Like where did he get his seeds from? I assume all Monsanto seeds out there have been purchased by someone. Isn't that enough?

Can people patent designer dog breeds? How about if they used genetic manipulation to obtain a unique breed?

What if one person uses genetic manipulation to create a striped dog and patents it, but Joe down the street uses natural breeding to create a striped dog- then what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
If it as the farmer described- patented seeds blowing onto his property, then Monsanto does not have a case. Like where did he get his seeds from? I assume all Monsanto seeds out there have been purchased by someone. Isn't that enough?



What if one person uses genetic manipulation to create a striped dog and patents it, but Joe down the street uses natural breeding to create a striped dog- then what?
It'd have to be alot more similarity than just stripes, and I would think there is some kind of specific signature in the DNA itself that could identify it as manufactured.

My point is if we can patent DNA where do we draw the line? Should we allow creation of a being almost but not quite human, that can be bought and sold and used for labor & production? Should we allow production of a plant or seed that has the effect of steroids?
 

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
If it as the farmer described- patented seeds blowing onto his property, then Monsanto does not have a case. Like where did he get his seeds from? I assume all Monsanto seeds out there have been purchased by someone. Isn't that enough?
?

I don't have the quote from the judge on the case, but he said something alone the lines of: 'no matter how they seeds were obtained, whether they were stolen, planted by Monsanto, or blown there by the wind, they were obtained illegally.'

It's heavily believed that a large number of Judges and government officials are on or were on the board of Monsanto.
 

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
It'd have to be alot more similarity than just stripes, and I would think there is some kind of specific signature in the DNA itself that could identify it as manufactured.

My point is if we can patent DNA where do we draw the line? Should we allow creation of a being almost but not quite human, that can be bought and sold and used for labor & production? Should we allow production of a plant or seed that has the effect of steroids?

See that's different though, your talking about what GMO we should allow, not just patenting in general.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
It'd have to be alot more similarity than just stripes, and I would think there is some kind of specific signature in the DNA itself that could identify it as manufactured.

You could be right.

My point is if we can patent DNA where do we draw the line? Should we allow creation of a being almost but not quite human, that can be bought and sold and used for labor & production? Should we allow production of a plant or seed that has the effect of steroids?
I don't think the "work humans" would be acceptable. Reminds me of Blade Runner and Replicants. I don't see a problem with seeds on sterioids. With the introduction of commercial fertilizer around the turn of the century (1900) they've been on steriods for over 100 years. Although it can be argued there is a price to pay when commercial fertilizer and excess animal manure is flushed into rivers and water basins. They are all ready experimenting with plants that have genes inserted that do things like make them unpalatable to bugs and pigs that grow medicine or Omega3 in their flesh. I think the only limits might be the considerations of the "down side" of such technology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You could be right.

I don't think the "work humans" would be acceptable. Reminds me of Blade Runner and Replicants. I don't see a problem with seeds on sterioids. With the introduction of commercial fertilizer around the turn of the century (1900) they've been on steriods for over 100 years. Although it can be argued there is a price to pay when commercial fertilizer and excess animal manure is flushed into rivers and water basins. They are all ready experimenting with plants that have genes inserted that do things like make them unpalatable to bugs and pigs that grow medicine or Omega3 in their flesh. I think the only limits might be the considerations of the "down side" of such technology.

Makes me wonder what the difference is between GMO human slaves and robots... hmmm...
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top