Thread: GMOs and Gene Patents

Genes shouldn't be able to be patented. Period. Since nearly all of Monsanto's and DuPont's seed contains patented genes, farmers are not allowed to keep their crop for seed for next year for fear of patent infringement. And since non-GMO crops yield not nearly as much as GMO crops, farmers can't compete with them. As a result, the farmer becomes a slave of his seed company, being forced to pay whatever price the seed company feels like. (Roundup Ready soybean seed often costs >$100 per 50 lb. bag.)

That being said, GMO crops are generally benevolent. There's almost no difference between them and conventional crops. It could be argued that all of humanity's crops have been genetically modified by artificial selection. The wild precursor to wheat probably didn't have the genes for huge, difficult to scatter seeds in the wild until humanity came along and selected varieties that had that particular mutation. Once you realize that, there is almost no such thing as non-GMO food anymore.

They pose several advantages to the farmer. On the same acre, GMO crops will yield more, giving farmers bigger profits for a similar input (the aforementioned seed price hike aside.) And also, no-till cropping in general would be nearly impossible without glyphosate resistant (Roundup Ready) GMO crops. In order to combat weeds, farmers either need to till the ground, reducing the organic carbon content, compacting it, and promoting erosion, or spray the field before it is planted and after the crop is up to kill all of the weeds. And already, the weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup. Our "non-GMO" crops would have developed this trait through artificial selection, but gene insertion is much faster.


How do I know all of this? I'm a farm kid. If I didn't hear Dad's anti-Monsanto rants every day, I'd have to be deaf.

Almost all the organisms we consume have been genetically modified. The difference is only in the method used. Artificial selection and breeding verses genetic engineering. But we'll focus on the traditional meaning of genetically engineered organisms here.

For the most part, I don't see why they wouldn't be safe, since in many cases genes are being copy-pasted from other safe organisms; the chances of that particular gene having an adverse effect on the safety of the food in question seems highly unlikely.

I'm definitely opposed to gene patenting, as it basically exploits the people who can least afford it, and hinders research. Not to mention that people have used it to gain patents on other people's DNA and naturally occuring DNA segments to which I would say they have no claim to whatsoever.

The general principal of genetic engineering has a lot of merit. However the current systems in place cause a lot of problems, probably more than they solve for GM crops. Though using GM to create organisms such as insulin-producing E. coli has been a success, and a good use of the technology.

GM is fine. What exactly is the rationale behind the fear? Is it just a scary word or something? I'm inclined to think so, considering the vast majority of the population don't even have the faintest concept of what a gene even is.

As Photolysis says, we've been genetically modifying crops for 10,000 years via artificial selection.

But gene patenting shouldn't be allowed. It's pretty bizarre to be honest. Why on Earth should you be able to grant yourself ownership over a part of nature? Why don't I suddenly claim that I own the moon?

What exactly is the rationale behind the fear? Is it just a scary word or something? I'm inclined to think so, considering the vast majority of the population don't even have the faintest concept of what a gene even is.

It's generally what happens when laymen talk about things they don't understand, and when the mass media uses loaded language such as "Frankensteinian experiments" or "playing god".

But then again, lots of people love to use the "it's unnatural card", no matter how absurd and fallacious that is.

Why don't I suddenly claim that I own the moon?

I hereby patent the DNA of every DV vistor. I demand compensation for violating my patent and additional royalties for the continued use of it!

It's bizarre isn't it. People are essentially claiming ownership to a scientific discovery. It's like trying to patent a chemical reaction; how does anyone have the right to do such a thing?

While the genetic modifications themselves probably aren't a threat, the farming methods they support are. As Odd_Non pointed out, the most common modification is to make crops more amenable to growing in a sterile chemical substrate saturated with poison. The up side of these methods is more crops per acre and fewer man-hours per harvested ton. The downsides are far-reaching: most obviously, more poison in the food supply; runoff and outgassing from fields, two of our largest pollution sources; blander food with fewer trace nutrients; homogeneity of crop genomes, making them more vulnerable to unforeseen threats.

The environmental and health impact is multiplied when we consider that much of this crop is below-food-grade, grown as feed for our out-sized meat industry, which increases the quantity and virulence of runoff and adds hormones and antibiotics into the mix. The diet supported by all of this industrialization is high in cholesterol and simple carbs, contributing with certainty to heart disease and diabetes, and possibly to asthma, allergies and other immunilogical disfunction. It's hard to say whether this system does more to nourish and sustain us or to sicken us and degrade our quality of life.

I made a thread called "They will kill us all without firing a shot" which had a link to a documentary about Monsanto.

Here's the link to the thread http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ghlight=firing

Here is a link to the documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE

GMO's are fucked up.

I agree. I'm gonna watch that documentary over the weekend, I have a paper I'm should be writing, but it looks good.

I was just talking with a friend of mine yesterday about how monsanto is basically trying to take over the world. If you control the food supply, you control people. This stuff seems likes it's out of some kind of science fiction movie.

The gene Monsanto uses to produce their Roundup resistant plants came from some bacteria they found in their toxic waste dump that somehow managed to survive. Yeah, lets put that in the food!

The other GM variant are plants that produce their own pesticides. If that gene somehow manages to jump to to the person eating it, then that organism could in theory poison it's self. I'm no biochemist, but it is possible perhaps through a retro virus or it makes a new home in the stomach or intestinal tract. Cows are very susceptible to this due to their multiple stomachs.

But the real problem is the legal system. If one farmer is growing Monsanto GM crops, and his neighbour is growing the same all natural crop, then cross pollination is inevitable. If wind or insects bring the Monsanto pollen into the "natural" farmer's fields through no fault of his own, then his crops become the property of Monsanto, and he subject to hefty fines.

What's more Monsanto has people who illegally sneak into farmer's fields to test for their genes and take those farmer to court. People no longer have the option to choose wether or not they want to use Monsanto's demon seed. At least that's how it is here in Canada.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

The gene Monsanto uses to produce their Roundup resistant plants came from some bacteria they found in their toxic waste dump that somehow managed to survive. Yeah, lets put that in the food!

That's the big irony in it though. It helps to stop thinking about it in terms of "look what we are adding to our food" and start thinking about it in terms of "look where we are learning to change our food". If you want to learn to survive poisoning, ask the ones that survived the poison before. The gene sequence for Roundup-resistance was likely learned by studying the bacteria, than synthesized by a machine that assembles DNA molecules.

In my opinion, gene patents should be like prescription drugs. The company that patents it only gets exclusive rights for a set amount of time, past there, the gene cannot be protected by law.

Allowing NO patents for genes wouldn't work, a company might not want to spend money researching GM if they couldn't be guaranteed profit on what they might discover.

I agree with the OP

On a somewhat related note: you can mix dog breeds through artificial selection, but you cant make them glow in the dark or spit poison without some microscopic interference.

There is nothing wrong with GMOs. They are just like "natural" organisms, except for their origin. Also, all GMOs are not the same. If modifying food-plants to produce pesticides which are toxic to humans is dangerous, all that means is producing food with pesticide in it is a bad idea, not that genetic modification itself is bad.

It's a bit like the naturalistic fallacy. Arsenic is natural too.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

There is nothing wrong with GMOs.

You sure about that? Listen to this, then tell me you still think there is nothing wrong with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRFJw...x=0&playnext=1

Originally Posted by Licity

In my opinion, gene patents should be like prescription drugs. The company that patents it only gets exclusive rights for a set amount of time, past there, the gene cannot be protected by law.

They're already doing that. DuPont and Syngenta have the gylphosate resistant gene, but not Monsanto's current one. Monsanto exploits the patent system by slightly changing something about the seed variety every time the patent is about to run out, even if it in no way changes the plant. I believe that the last reason they had for "renewing" their patent was "the way the gene is inserted." Bullshit.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

I'm no biochemist, but it is possible perhaps through a retro virus or it makes a new home in the stomach or intestinal tract. Cows are very susceptible to this due to their multiple stomachs.

Well, I am a biochemist, and yes, it's possible, but only in theory. Otherwise the genome in your intestines would be full chicken, cow, pig, salad, carrot, orange, etc. genes, all coming from the food you eat.
And it hasn't been found that cows have grass genes in their stomachs.

That's not to say that gene transfer between very different species doesn't exist in nature, it just doesn't happens under different circumstances.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

But the real problem is the legal system.

That's the main issue. It's possible to abuse this technology and some people are abusing it. That doesn't make the technology itself bad. At least not until there is evidence showing that it is bad.

I agree with people saying gene patents are bullshit. However, it's really hard to draw the line there. You shouldn't be able to patent genes you discovered in nature, but you should be able to patent the ones you create yourself.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

You sure about that? Listen to this, then tell me you still think there is nothing wrong with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRFJw...x=0&playnext=1

All that means is that GMOs are being used irresponsibly, not that genetic engineering is the devil. If the risk research had not been rigged, they could have just gone back and fixed the problems they were having to make it 100% safe, just like in every other area of science. Genetic engineering per se is not the problem, the problem is Monsanto deliberately trying to avoid proper safety procedures.

But will this kind of genetic engineering ever be used responsibly? The kind of genitic engeneering that Mosano does is extroidinarily costly and completely uneccessary. The plants will grow either way. It isn't helping famers in any way, and from what I can tell it's actually bad for them.

The technology itself may not be bad, but right now it is being used in bad ways. I've heard from a few different sources that that the rBGH bovine growth horomone is bad for your health(a few said cancer). I don't see it being used properly in the future either, but if some one has an idea as to a way that this could be used in a positive way I'd like to hear it.

Originally Posted by stonedape

The technology itself may not be bad, but right now it is being used in bad ways.

'good' ways by far outnumber the 'bad' ways. But hey, I bet you could find fault in any technology being used by humans today.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I've heard from a few different sources that that the rBGH bovine growth horomone is bad for your health(a few said cancer).

Any use of BGH is potentially dangerous. I don't think it matters if it's recombinant or 'natural'. But this is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I don't see it being used properly in the future either, but if some one has an idea as to a way that this could be used in a positive way I'd like to hear it.

OK, I'll give it a go

1. Medicine
Production of many vaccines, drugs, therapeutic proteins/hormones would be impossible without this technology.

It's used in production of monoclonal antibodies. Without them most diagnostic test would not exist and molecular biology/medicine would be 40 years behind of where they are today.

You also have PCR based diagnostics for a whole bunch of genetic and infectious diseases. The same method is used in forensics and paternity tests.

Cancer research and cancer diagnostic are heavily dependant on this technology. Gene therapy and rationally designed drugs are just emerging, but they would be impossible without it.

2. Industry

Biotechnology provides a 'green' way to produce bulk chemicals instead of using classical chemical processes, for example ethanol.

Using a genetic eng. you can change the metabolism of producing strains so they can use waste products from other industries as starting materials. For example using wood chips (cellulose) to produce ethanol.

Enzymes used in laundry detergents are a product of directed evolution which uses tools from genetic engineering.
http://www.biotechlearn.org.nz/focus...useful_enzymes

3. Environmental engineering

Genetically modifying microorganisms to degrade hydrocarbons is one of the ways to deal with oil spills. This is also a way to improve mixed cultures used for treating waste waters and landfills.

I found this, it sounds cool.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10625398

We have developed a radiation resistant bacterium for the treatment of mixed radioactive wastes containing ionic mercury. The high cost of remediating radioactive waste sites from nuclear weapons production has stimulated the development of bioremediation strategies using Deinococcus radiodurans, the most radiation resistant organism known.

Modified microorganisms and their enzymes, can also be used as biosensors for various xenobiotics.

As you can see, this technology is applicable in many different areas.

My last post wasn't very clear. When I said "this kind, this technology", I was referring to what monsatno is doing with crops. Those ideas all sound great, but what I meant was how can this be used in food that will be benificial?

I'm not trying to say that modification is bad, I think it's fine, just not in food. I'd rather eat unmodified food than modified food.

Originally Posted by stonedape

My last post wasn't very clear. When I said "this kind, this technology", I was referring to what monsatno is doing with crops. Those ideas all sound great, but what I meant was how can this be used in food that will be benificial?

You skipped from GM crops to rBGH, that's why it looked like you were asking about the technology in general. Sorry if I missed the point.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I'd rather eat unmodified food than modified food.

That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter if it's beneficial or not, most people will prefer 'unmodified food'.

Yeah, when I created this thread I was only thinking of GM foods. I really had no idea that it had that many other uses. I figured it would be limited to just food and drugs.

It seems to me that over time these GM foods will become so dominant that it will be difficult to get unmodified foods. Monasnto is a ruthless company and they are making it very difficult for farmers to use anything other than their seeds. Here in the U.S. a very large portion of our food is modified, and the numbers are growing.

I'm watching the documentary in Grasshoppa's post right now. A man just said this speaking of Monsanto "It's objective is to control all of the worlds food production through farmerless farming."

I'm sure there are ways genetic engineering can improve food. For example, increasing the nutritious/indigestible protein ratio, or putting extra vitamins in - which would be great for vegetarians at least. This is what I meant when I said all GMOs are not the same. Yes Monsanto may be bastards, but it annoys me when people generalize that to the whole science of genetic engineering.

Bring on the GM marijuana already!

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

I'm sure there are ways genetic engineering can improve food. For example, increasing the nutritious/indigestible protein ratio, or putting extra vitamins in - which would be great for vegetarians at least. This is what I meant when I said all GMOs are not the same. Yes Monsanto may be bastards, but it annoys me when people generalize that to the whole science of genetic engineering.

Wouldn't it make sense to learn how not to burn down the house with matchsticks before we pick up the flamethrower?

Millions are eating GM crops daily, and aren't dead. I'm pretty sure we have the house under control.