Intellectual Property Rights

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

Genetically Modified Organisms (G.M.O.s) debates have plagued society and politicians since the idea of G.M.O.s have come to the playing field. Should farmers use them? What are the risks of G.M.O.s? Can G.M.O.s cause cancer in humans? All of these questions as well as a collection of others are waiting to be answered. The article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops” by Amy Harmon is concentrated on a councilman-Greggar Ilagan- researching questions he has about G.M.O.s so he can make an educated vote on whether or not to pass a ban on genetically modified crops.

Because Monsanto patented the their gene modification, they legally own all rights to any seed

The driving factor behind plant biotechnology is “social constructionism”, in which “social values and institutional domains and their culture shape technology” [Goyder chapter 10]. Bioengineering companies might declare social needs as the motive behind pursuing this technology. In reality, these capitalist institutions possess the much needed economic surplus to invest serve their own desires. The social needs they “intend” to solve are: world food shortage, increase agricultural productivity, help the environment by eliminating pesticides, improve nutrition of foods. Opponents of biotechnology, scientists, consumer advocates, environmental protection agencies, do not buy this claim. According to them, these reasons are just the pretence to fulfil “...capitalist’s profit-making via the deployment of technology, [3 Goyder chapter 5]. Most crop developments so far has been “profit-driven rather than need driven” [4, ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security]. In a capitalistic society, patent laws under constitution permits ownership of seeds, living organisms; genes. Patents permit company like Monsanto could monopolize seed’s

In this paper I am writing on the Ventria Bioscience and the Controversy over Plant-Made Medicines Case. Ventria Bioscience is a company that is trying to commercialize pharmaceuticals made from genetically modified plants. While Ventria is gaining opposition from regulators, activist, and environmentalist; they could succeed if they use their relevant stakeholders and specific strategies, information, financial incentive, constituency building, to influence regulators.

In North America and Europe the value and impact of genetically engineered food crops have become subjects of intense debate, provoking reactions from unbridled optimism to fervent political opposition.

Skloot’s chapter “Linux for Lettuce” by Lisa Hamilton discusses the difficulties for seeds to be available to the people because of the patents they have on them. Seed companies patents their plant so that other breeders cannot grow plants that resembles theirs. This really have an impact on plant breeders because they can be sued if they use the same plants.

Page enlightens the reader that we already know how to accomplish that task. One of the problems is that the poorer countries do not have the money to afford these better crops. Another issue is the resistance to genetically modified food. Page then argues that the lines are becoming more blurred between genetic engineering and conventional breeding, and that intentionally improving the DNA of crops is more practical than breeding two

The patenting issue gained some attention when President Bill Clinton and Prime Minster Tony Blair jointly called for the release of raw genetic data into the public domain (CQ 405). I will argue in this paper that the aggressive competition among biotechnology firms to patent genes is

Companies like Monsanto's should not be able to patent seeds because due to this we have been losing so many varieties of vegetables and fruits.According to The Future Of Foods, only 2% of the USA’s population is a farmer. Due to this it leaves us with 98% of us as non-farmers, because of this labor on vegetables and fruits have grown tremendously.In the 1800's very little potatoes grew in Ireland this started great hunger and thousands of people died due to that.A similar thing happened in Spain but the outcome was very different, not that many people died. This happened because in Ireland there were only a few varieties of potatoes and due to this most of the potatoes that people used to eat were gone.In Spain the same thing happened but

GMOs are one of the most disputed areas of science, genetic engineering is used in many careers, but even though medical utilization such as GM insulin are accepted, the controversy heats up when it comes to agriculture. Why is that, Why is the same thing treated so differently? Lets try to get to the bottom of this and explore the facts, the fears and the future of GMOs.

Monsanto as an organization needs to recognize the issues it is creating in the world’s crops. As well as society needs to be educated about the dangers and ethics of genetically modified organisms, and how a company like Monsanto can patent a corn or soybean seed’s genetic code.

Court decision on gene patents impacts GM crops by Mateusz Perkowski explores the issue of patenting genes and what are the standards for a genes to be patentable. This article is from the The Capital Press, which is a weekly agricultural newspaper covering the West Coast of the United States. Perkowski is a writer and journalist that graduated from Willamette University. This is a good resource for those who are researching about patents and its connection to law and what makes a gene patentable. It is not that long however, it uses quotes from reputable sources such as Chris Holman, a law professor, that make this article a valuable source for this topic in particular. This article is relevant towards my research paper since it provides evidence

Research articles can be quite complex and adding patents to the mix seems to make the comprehensive level even more challenging. In this paper lies three parts commonly seen within a research article and explains how each of them are connected and deemed vital for approval of a plant patent. The three parts are the methods done in the experiment, the results from the experiment, and the textual features that make the article more credible and organized. This paper will go on to talk about a couple of instances that can occur as well when dealing with plant patents and the research behind them. Once this has been read, perhaps those who want to do research can learn how research articles and plant patents have an outstanding correlation

In the 1990s, the first genetically engineered foods were made available to the public. In 1994, Flavr Savr Tomato has been approved which was the first genetically modified whole food to be approved for public consumption (Lyona, 2000). What is more, in 1999, a strong development of pest and disease resistant seeds has been observed. For the last eleven years, from 2000 to 2011, companies and scientists have been very busy developing new GM products, testing them and submitting for approval to different authorities and agencies.