advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: October 08, 2012 10:33AM
[www.reuters.com]

"Oct 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider an Indiana soybean farmer's appeal of a decision finding that he infringed Monsanto Co patents over seeds containing the company's genetically altered Roundup Ready technology.

"

- - - -

Personally, if I was a farmer, I would have arranged for Monsanto and neighboring farmers to be arrested for Genetic Trespass for daring to allow their Monsanto seeds to interbreed with my plants. What Monsanto has done in both allowing these genetic mods to propagate naturally across the world, and THEN sue farmers into oblivion whose plants were 'raped' is... pretty damn horrible.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not a "All GMODS are teh evil" kind of person. But their initial 'guarantees' that the seeds don't breed was proven false, and so their 'safety' guarantees were.. not. That's a clear breach of bioethics protocol. And then to use that breach for profit ? Aargh.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: mattkime
Date: October 08, 2012 11:23AM
>>Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not a "All GMODS are teh evil" kind of person. But their initial 'guarantees' that the seeds don't breed was proven false, and so their 'safety' guarantees were.. not. That's a clear breach of bioethics protocol. And then to use that breach for profit ? Aargh.

full agreement.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: October 08, 2012 11:28AM
If I understand the article, this is not a case of interbreeding, but a case in which a dealer (or the farmer) mixed seeds from Roundup Ready plants with other seeds. The contractual requirements for using and selling Roundup Ready seeds have been around for close to 2 decades at this point, and are well known to the entire agricultural business. Considering the hundreds of thousands of farms that use GMO seeds, it's not surprising that there are a few cases of farmers who think they can violate the patent limits. There is at least one former farmer who grew his own Roundup Ready seeds from plants that were seeded on his property by wind or neighboring spill, and was caught and sued by Monsanto. After looking carefully at the evidence, the court found that it was clear that the farmer had knowingly violated the rights of the patent-holder. He's a hero to the anti-GMO crowd now. Whether this case will be that simple is not for me to say, but I doubt that the Scotus will overturn the idea of GMO patenting at this point.

I find the hysteria over genetic modification to be just that -- arguments based on ignorance and anger, turning a fairly humdrum technology into a science fiction novel full of spurious arguments about non-issues.

Just to take one example: The opponents make a big deal about the fact that there is a small bit of DNA in Roundup Ready plants and BT resistant plants that you eat, along with all the other plant DNA, when you eat the corn or the vegetables. You eat a lot of DNA all the time -- we call it good nutrition -- and your body recycles the subunits. We do the same thing with vitamins, minerals, and proteins, just to name a few other nutrients. At the same time, we also eat a lot of microorganisms that carry the same genes the anti-GMO people are so hysterical about, and we eat them in their full-bore natural hosts such as the soil bacteria from which they were originally identified. We've been doing this for close to 20 years, and there is no evidence of harm, but a lot of evidence that it saves farmers money and reduces the amount of herbicide that gets sprayed.

There is a "study" that has just been revealed by a European lab that purports to show that Roundup Ready feed is carcinogenic to rats. The study is so bad that serious scientists have blown the whistle on it -- the least of the complaints is that when you take the study's data and subject it to standard statistical tests, the result is that there is no result. The authors therefore had to make up their own statistical methods, so to speak, in order to claim results. One wag pointed out that it would be akin to dealing yourself 2 cards, and dealing your friends 5 cards each. Then, you turn over the cards and show that one of your friends has more hearts in his hand than in yours, and if you look hard enough, you can find another friend's hand that has more diamonds. In other words, when you grow a small number of rats which get tumors 80 percent of the time if they live long enough, and you let them live long enough, you see tumors. If you limit the control group to 10 rats and do various test groups of 10 rats (they really did this!), you are going to see random variations in one group or another, which is exactly what they found.

The analogous experiment you can do is to take 10 nickels or 10 quarters (it doesn't matter which) and throw them into the air. Count the number of heads and tails for that throw and write it down. The average for a lot of such throws is about 5 heads and 5 tails, but in any one throw, you may get 3 of one and 7 of the other, or 4 vs 6, and so forth. That's what the European study did in effect, but I have been reading letters to the editor in my local rag that quotes this study and claims that GMO corn causes huge tumors in rats.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: October 08, 2012 12:29PM
Ca Bob.. the other cases I alluded to were cases where Roundup Ready fields interbred with neighboring fields in South America, and Monsanto went in and did a "DNA analysis" to prove that the neighboring fields were 'stealing genetic strains'.

When in fact that 'theft' was through natural process of pollination, and had nothing whatsoever to do with any human agent. Hence my note about 'plant rape'.

And yeah.. I heard the NPR report about that study.

The Definition of Bad Science ?

When the results are defined before the tests.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: August West
Date: October 08, 2012 05:57PM
Quote

Ca Bob.. the other cases I alluded to were cases where Roundup Ready fields interbred with neighboring fields in South America, and Monsanto went in and did a "DNA analysis" to prove that the neighboring fields were 'stealing genetic strains'.

This is what I wonder about. I have heard that there is interbreeding and, if so, I would agree with cbelt's original position. I am far from an expert in the Monsanto modifications and implementation ( although, to toot my own horn, I did learn bioinformatics programming to help some researchers), but what I gleaned from the media is that the interbreeding exists. Am I under a false impression?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: Marc Anthony
Date: October 08, 2012 06:13PM
Quote
Ca Bob
You eat a lot of DNA all the time... At the same time, we also eat a lot of microorganisms that carry the same genes the anti-GMO people are so hysterical about... We've been doing this for close to 20 years, and there is no evidence of harm...

GMOs are an ongoing experiment; the lack of past evidence of harm isn't the same as proof of their future safety. Monsanto should rightly pay farmers for any hybrids and destroy them, however, the genie is already out of the bottle. Something as seemingly innocuous as a mutation in a crossbreed's protein shape could result in dangerous offspring that could end up being transported all over the place by bird, insect, or wind.



Le po├Ęte doit vivre beaucoup, vivre dans tous les sens. - Verlaine
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: SCOTUS to Review Monsanto Gene Patents.. interesting
Posted by: RgrF
Date: October 11, 2012 05:54AM
Where does this place us in the universe of ideas? Should some ideas not be subject to patent protection? If they they come to fruition and alter the planet and it's ability to sustain it's populace? Who'll be left to
complain?

Anything, like a patent device that it's proprietor's decides to withhold from the market for personal gain despite need, one that becomes transcendent ought to be subject to seizure by the government for the greater good.

Scientists like Jonas Salk donated their work to the greater good, who does that today? How many children his vaccine saved from polio are today patenting the things they now find on their own? No one finds anything on their own, but should they be fortunate enough to stumble into something unique, they don't call their mentor or professor - they call a lawyer.

Had Dr Saulk patented and sold his vaccine to those who could most afford it, I'd probably not be here today

We've become a far less caring world nation.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 102
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020