Biotech Company To Patent Pigs 285
Anonymous Swine writes "Monsanto, a US based multinational biotech company, is causing a stir by its plan to patent pig-breeding techniques including the claim on animals born by the techniques. 'Agricultural experts are scrambling to assess how these patents might affect the market, while consumer activists warn that if the company is granted pig-related patents, on top of its tight rein on key feed and food crops, its control over agriculture could be unprecedented. "We're afraid that Monsanto and other big companies are getting control of the world's genetic resources," said Christoph Then, a patent expert with Greenpeace in Germany. The patent applications, filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization, are broad in scope, and are expected to take several years and numerous rewrites before approval.'"
Monsanto's motto... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do only evil."
So far they're on track.
this is getting way out of hand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:patents and insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with GMO crops, and more importantly, for anti-GMO people, is that they are simply better for the farmer. They can produce more for less work. Even when you take the licensing costs into account, it is more economical overall. Presumably, the anti-GMO people are against this push into new markets because it will do the same for pig farmers as it did for crop farmers. And that'll make it harder for anti-GMO people to continue their "organic" lifestyle.
After all, what could possibly go wrong?
A history of evil (Score:5, Insightful)
God help you if one of their seeds blows onto your property and one of their pigs eat it.
Re:patents and insanity (Score:2, Insightful)
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
To the farmer they are, yes, because automating the tending of a crop that is all identical is much easier. If they could economically clone cattle and ensure they grow uniformly, they would because it would mean the slaughter floor could be completely automated.
... because they'll never abuse their monopoly license ...
They do indeed abuse their monopoly license.. but that is a measurable cost and it is in the monopolists interest to keep that cost at a level that their customer is willing to pay. So it really boils down to the choice: do you want to make less money just to spite the monopoly. Some people do, most people don't.
Dell sells computers with Windows preinstalled on it because they can make more money than selling computers without it preinstalled. My argument was that farmers find Monsanto's crops better. Not that it was what was best for the consumer.
Re:STFU Enviro-nazi's (Score:5, Insightful)
"Best" is relative here. Having a single company control agricultural output in the way that Monsanto does, free markets or no, is a damned dangerous thing. This is about the core structural support of civilization. Fuck with the food supply, and bad things can happen.
Monsanto is dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Clueless insanity drives MindSpeak.... (Score:2, Insightful)
All of your arguments are valid and applicable to agriculture and Monsanto...but not effective when compared to patents on DNA, Genes, and genetics in an over-broad approach that Corp.s (and specifically, Monsanto) are trying to exploit, with grave consequences.
Just search google, wikipedia, or your favorite reference source for 'DNA patents", Genome patents', or 'Gene patents' for a scary look into our future.
You should be scared by the implications.
Do your own research, just keep an open mind.
Follow the trend with recent(past 20 years) 'IP' thinking/law.
If you are not scared, you either do not understand/care, or are a MegaCorp drone, and don't care.
Yes, I did set up a 'Straw man Dichotomy'
Disprove it, if you can.
I await a relevant reply.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:patents and insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the anti-GMO crowd is pretty simple in their thinking. They'll rave about organic crops that rely heavily on tillage techniques which promote oxidation of soil organic matter, breakdown of soil structure, and other adverse effects, but condemn GMOs like Round-Up Ready crops that enable zero-tillage systems that preserve soil organic matter, moisture, and structure.
Re:patents and insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
To the farmer they are, yes, because automating the tending of a crop that is all identical is much easier.
At least until this [slashdot.org] happens and then we have no more of whatever that crop was.
Re:Patents run out in 20 years (Score:2, Insightful)
Monsanto is an evil, evil company. One needs only to scratch the surface of a google search on the company to come to this conclusion.
The way they have perverted the natural process of pollination - a process by which nobody has any real control - and turned it into a way to force farmers out of business and create a monopoly market is nothing short of evil.
The way they force third world countries to continue buying their products by selling them plants which create infertile seeds, rather than allowing these nations to provide for themselves and actually have a chance of pulling themselves out of third-world status, is nothing short of evil.
This has nothing to do with anti-corporate people. It has everything to do with anti-Monsanto people. Forget Microsoft, Apple, Verizon, AT&T or BT. These companies are bad in their own ways, but they are pure, virgin saints in comparison to Monsanto.
Monsanto represents everything which is wrong with extreme capitalism. It is the poster child for why government regulations are necessary, even in a free market. Sadly, Monsanto has, shall we say, 'undue influence', over many of the government officials which are supposed to be keeping them in check.
Patenting genes, DNA, and our food supply is wrong. These are the fundamental building blocks of life. If it isn't obvious why giving monopoly power over these to any company - much less one with no morality whatsoever - is bad, then you are an uneducated, dimwitted moron, plain and simple. No ifs or buts about it.
If you feel like educating yourself, go read Animal Farm. Even The 6th Day with Arnie might prove helpful to you.
Re:patents and insanity (Score:3, Insightful)
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
To the farmer they are, yes, because automating the tending of a crop that is all identical is much easier. If they could economically clone cattle and ensure they grow uniformly, they would because it would mean the slaughter floor could be completely automated.
Until a disease slips through and wipes out the entire crop/herd in a single blow. Heck, non-GMO monoculture crops are a bad enough idea already. They do a horrible job of utilizing and restoring soil nutrients, requiring more and more fertilizers and support.
It's expensive and unsustainable.
Re:Patents run out in 20 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Except none of these arguments matter because patents run out in 20 years.
And they only have "control" when you give it to them in exchange for a benefit. If it's not a good deal, don't buy it.
I don't mindlessly buy into your groupthink. "If you disagree, then you're stupid" tends to be an argument typical of those who promote ideas that are false.
Re:patents and insanity (Score:1, Insightful)
They have done it before with corn. Twice successfully in court.
So infesting the water supply is the best method to get their product into the animal population to sue everyone in the area whom owns animals and hasn't yet paid them their licensing fee.
If they have both done it twice before, and used their own staffs government positions to get a judge to agree the farmers were in the wrong due to monsatso's actions... Why would you even think they wouldn't do this a third and more times? It has worked in the past plenty well.
You are basically making the argument "Well he has stolen my TV twice from me, but this time it will be different, this time I only have a stereo!"
http://foodchronicles.blogspot.com/2007/01/monsanto-problem.html [blogspot.com]
Re:patents and insanity (Score:3, Insightful)
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
No one said that. You did.
... because they'll never abuse their monopoly license ...
The RIAA does all the time. Does that reflect upon the artistic merit of a band? Monsanto abuses patents, what does that have to do with anything besides act as a red herring?
... because it's easy to keep GMOs from contaminating non-GMOs (crops/animals) ...
Not yet. That's the beauty of it, there's no reason why something can't be avoided. There are still bugs to work out, yes, and those present unique issues, but has there ever been a technology that was absolutely perfected from the get-go?
... because selective breeding is such a radical and new idea ...
And it may soon be archaic. We can do a lot more a lot faster. The horse and buggy wasn't bad, but the car was better. Of course, working better never stopped clueless luddites from bitching.
... because they'll never take a naturally-occurring species and slip a patent on it ...
Red herring. This has nothing to do with GMOs.
After all, what could possibly go wrong?
With what? Fire? Arson. Chemistry? Explosives. Computer networks? Cybercrime.
Perhaps you don't get this, but everything is what it is because of genetics. A Red Delicious apple is sweeter than a wild apple for one reason alone: genetics. You control that and we could massively increase what land is usable for farmland and can cut back on a shitload of resources. What could possibly go wrong if we use GMOs? Not as much as what could go wrong if we don't.
Re:patented bacon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
And the issue with superweeds now is getting serious. In my own state, pig amaranth is taking over a lot of fields that were grown with GM cotton then sprayed.
I hear a lot about Roundup and resistant strains. Why is that problem exclusive to Roundup? That couldn't happen with other sprays?
We have climate indicators, and we have health of the crop and insect indicators, and the status of our honeybees now is a good indicator or canary in the coal mine if you will. Superweeds, honeybees croaking off, vendor lockin, loss of biodiversity..you have to look at the whole picture.
No, you need to look at each individual phenomenon. Don't say 'GMOs are bad' then list a whole bunch of random problems that aren't connected.
they have no idea whatsoever what the long term consequences will be
Without omnipotence, that is indeed hard to predict. How do you solve such a problem? Halting progress indefinitly isn't a reasonable answer. Combustion engines caused global warming. Should we have halted the automobile for the past century until we knew every little thing that could go wrong. Sorry if this sounds reckless, but it simply isn't reasonable.
What GM crops are is programmed food.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
What GM crops are is programmed food.
Again, so what? What difference does it make what 'happens in nature?' Also, given time, anything can happen in nature. How do you think those genes got there to begin with?
You think there won't be some real bad WHOOPS down the line someplace?
Maybe, but until there is evidence to indicate that, I see no reason to believe that.
I can understand a distaste for Monsanto, but I don't see why the technology itself isn't good, although I must admit that too am biased.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem with experimentation, but we're talking about a system that has functioned for millenia, and you want wholesale conversion after a few decades of testing?
In terms of our crops, we should have century-long pilot programs where we evaluate the long-term evolutionary results of our meddling. The current method allows no room for failure.
I know that's hard for people to swallow in an age when we expect evolution to take off at the speed of light, but we should be wary of outright replacing a functional system without reasonable testing.
Re:patents and insanity (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you don't get this, but everything is what it is because of genetics. A Red Delicious apple is sweeter than a wild apple for one reason alone: genetics. You control that and we could massively increase what land is usable for farmland and can cut back on a shitload of resources. What could possibly go wrong if we use GMOs? Not as much as what could go wrong if we don't.
I'm glad that you picked Red Delicious apples as an example as it shows all that is wrong with todays commercial farming industry.
I was going to go by my experience but figured maybe you'd like some citations.
So from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious [wikipedia.org]
As the cultivar was optimized for color and durability for major supermarket chains, taste and texture were sacrificed, and consumers began to reject the Red Delicious.[1]
...
In the 1980s Red Delicious represented three-quarters of the harvest in Washington state. In the 1990s reliance on Red Delicious pushed Washington state's apple industry to the edge of bankruptcy.[2] In 2000 Congress approved and President Bill Clinton signed a bill that bailed out the apple industry, after apple growers had lost $760 million since 1997.[1] By 2000, this cultivar made up less than one half of the Washington state output, and in 2003, the crop had shrunk to 37 percent of the state's harvest, which totaled 103 million boxes. Red Delicious still remains the single largest cultivar produced in the state, but others are growing in popularity, notably Fuji apples and Gala apples.[2]
So the apple farming industry was close to bankrupted due to choosing genes that were good for shipping and looking nice. This is the danger of GMO's especially with large corporate farming.
Note that here in BC where most orchids are owned by individual farmers red delicious never were that big of a deal. They are handy for cross pollinating (apples should have a couple of strains for pollination purposes) and the fact that they are later then the rest allows the harvest to be spread out. But still they taste like wood.
The worst is that the BC orchiders are now going out of business as they can't compete with an industry that gets bailed out of its bad decisions.
Also you should note that most all cultivators of apples were just wild apples that had good qualities and so were cloned.
Re:Monsanto's motto... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do only evil
Seriously? Creating new sources of food is evil? Patents last for a few years or a couple decades (at most). New sources of food will continue to pay dividends for generations.
Since exactly when are pigs a new source of food? I seem to remember enjoying bacon my entire life.
If they can come up with a genuinely new source of food, rather than retreading an old one and trying to claim they own it, I might say there's a case to be made.
Re:Time machine also patented (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem being that even if they are granted a narrow patent, it gives them an excuse to sue pig breeders not actually doing things in that narrow range. How many farmers and farming companies have the money to withstand a baseless patent lawsuit by Monsanto? Monsanto probably has its own in-house lawyer-breeding program; they're such fucking assholes.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8688/regulation_of_gmos_in_europe_and_the_united_states.html [cfr.org]
The risk of releasing a "programmed" organism out into the wild, where the genetic material cannot be withdrawn once it gets out, is a new risk, and regulation has just not yet caught up, especially in the US. The long term effect of a GMO on the ecology is not tested much before release... and with a GMO, you can't withdraw the experiment! Once it's out it's out. If a GMO plant kills all the honeybees, for instance, well, what can you do to put the genie back in the bottle? Destroy all the pollen?
All it takes is one company to skimp on testing in the short term and release a GM organism that in some way destroys the food ecology. Then we're toast. At least require some sort of enclosed biodome for testing or something.
Re:patented bacon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Monsanto's motto... (Score:5, Insightful)