|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strawberry Pocky Parade Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:00 pm
This is a continuation from my post here but you don't have to read that post in order to understand. The company Monsanto is putting patents on genetically altered seeds, and The company Myriad Genetics has a patent on the Breast Cancer gene. What does this mean? Monsanto is suing farmers for reusing their own seed without paying a commission to them since the genetically altered seed gets mixed in with their own--even if they didn't buy the GIS. Myriad Genetics gets paid top dollar because they've patented the two genes thought to be responsible for Breast Cancer. That's where all of your $$ for Breast Cancer research goes. Either it goes for finding a solution without using the genes--OR--it goes to that company. Proof? Look up Monsanto Seed Suites (on Google)or Myiad Genetics Suites (on Google)-- here is a CNN.com article!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:47 pm
That s**t's f***ed up. They did not invent those genes. Patents should be strictly for things that someone has invented or made. If people are patenting what ever the f*** they want then I'm gonna go patent tigers. And any time anyone wants to use a tiger for anything (drawing, putting in movies, photographing, whatever) they'll have to pay me for the right to do it. What the f***, America. What the f***.
(cleaning up the language a bit for the kiddies...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strawberry Pocky Parade Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:05 pm
Lol, I know right? (You make me LOLOL so much lately, mugoi.) What they're pattening is the genetic constructuion of the gene itself.
Everyone knows that a DNA strand looks like this:
(=)
(=)
(=)
only twisted, right?
WELL
What they're doing is taking a strand of it...
(=)
(=)
(=)
and taking the ( and Dicing it up into four parts. They insert their own part of the gene. Since they engineered that part of the gene, they say that it's a PRODUCT That they invested $$ in. So, that's what they're "patenting" and, with corn, they take the seed, pop in their genes, and sell it like that. The seeds get cross-pollinated, and then farmers have to pay for that gene. Sick, hm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:53 am
So, I don't like it, but I can understand the seed thing. I mean, a genetically engineered seed, to me, is valid to patent. Yes it's naturally occuring, but they took it and improved it using the technology we have. Good. Patent the hell out of that sucker.
What I do have a problem with is that whole cross pollination thing. If farmer Bob buys 100 genetic corn seeds and 500 plain old boring corn seeds and his plants cross pollinate and he winds up with lots of free genetic corn seeds, then fine. Charge him. He was kinda being a sneaky b*****d anyway. HOWEVER!! If Farmer bob buys 500 genetic corn seeds and his neighbor, Farmer Joe buys 500 plain old boring corn seeds and the plants get cross pollinated, why should Farmer Joe have to pay? He didn't ask for the seeds. He didn't try to get them. He was just going about his daily business of growing corn. Why should he have to pay for something he didn't want in the first place?
(Funny thing: Just so happens I know both a Farmer Bob and a Farmer Joe! And I live in the city!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strawberry Pocky Parade Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:52 am
Exactly, and that's what the lawsuits were about. Monsanto went so far as to bring a Canadian man to trial too. It's a US patent and a US company--monsanto won. When the farmers "settle" It usually is about them paying outrageous fees to Monsanto--but they're forbidden to discuss the case. Most of the reason why even I know about it is because the Canadian farmer and a few other ones went and brought them to court--and lost.
Monsanto had them destroy all of their saved seed. Now, if anyone knows a farmer, thats how they stay in business--saving their old seed. They went onto their land without permission in the first place to gather "evidence" of cross pollination, and then exaggerated their numbers until they could get a warrant for proper testing.
See, what they do too is as far as normal corn and crop seed goes--their version of "genetically modifying it" is inserting 2 split genes. One is a gene that resists a type of pesticide that they release. Another is a "marker" so that they can test that crop later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:10 pm
At least we learned something from Hawaiian studies class! :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:08 pm
If people are gonna be that specific, low land farmers should go sew big companies for mass producing all their stuff stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:06 pm
Wow, this case is really interesting. =_= But man there are so many details! I agree with Mugoi on how it's valid to patent a genetically altered seed, because technically, they did create it. However, on the part of suing farmers...
There's 2 sides to it and I have to play devil's advocate. I agree that it's messed up to sue farmers because of possible accidental cross pollination. However, what if it wasn't accidental? I mean, people never want to think badly of other people in the world, but what if this cross-pollination was on purpose, and now the farmers are trying to get out of the blame? Like both farmers want the seed, but instead of each buying their own share, they buy one bulk and "accidentally" cross-pollinate both of their farmlands?
The company that manufactured the seeds is a business and have every right to get retribution for unlawful use of their product. The problem that needs addressing is what is the truth, and frankly, I find that's something unattainable because how can you prove if the cross-pollination was on purpose or not? @_@ This is why I never want to get into the law field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
