E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Become a Fan

« Reaction to Bilski v. Kappos | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

June 30, 2010

Comments

Yet more proof, as if any was needed, that lack of a cerebrum is not an obstacle to a congressional seat. While Monsanto's practices until now with its Roundup Ready seeds have not been the sort that endear the company to the public - that clause in the contract that allows Monsanto to sue farmers who save seed in St. Louis instead of the farmer's own district is classic - it's understandable (at least to those of us with functioning gray matter) why Monsanto has acted as it has. If Monsanto couldn't prevent farmers from saving seed, it would have to raise the price of the seeds through the roof, to the point that the seeds would be unaffordable. Which really means no Roundup Ready seeds or similar products, ever. At least now, as reported in this blog a few months ago, the patents on the seeds are set to expire, which will allow farmers to save seeds henceforth. Are Kucinich & co. even aware that patents have a finite lifetime, and that the limited exclusivity granted by a patent is price society pays for the benefit of enabling disclosure of the new invention?

I especially like the hypocrisy evident in the first bill, about labeling "genetically modified" foods, when compared to the quote about the third bill, that biotech companies "have systematically acted to remove basic farmer rights enjoyed since the beginning of agriculture and essential for agricultural sustainability and the survival of family farms". Newsflash: since "the beginning of agriculture" (or at least since biblical times), farmers have been cross-breeding plants - that's genetic modification, isn't it? Is Dennis agitating for the labeling of cross-bred crops? If not, why distinguish between crops genetically modified by pre-20th century methods versus those modified by deliberating inserting a DNA vector into some of the plant cells? In any case, Monsanto, Syngenta and the like aren't seeking to prevent farmers from engaging in such practices.

Kucinich once bankrupted Cleveland. Now he seems set on killing the biotech industry as it applies to agriculture. What a great way to address world hunger.

Don,

We know all about "Dennis the Menace" here in the Buckeye State. Actually, I respect Kucinich for his integrity to his position, even though I generally view it as misguided. These bills will do what Europe would be glad for us to do; shoot our American bioengineered agriculture in the foot. Note also that there appear to be NO Republican co-sponsors for these bills; that tells me the debate on this will be very partisan.

The new bill is anti-science; without basis, it explicitly promotes fear of the new; it arbitrarily draws distinction between foodstuffs, all of which are genetically modified. It will greatly hamper food technology that will be needed to prevent wide-scale starvation that is anticipated as the Earth's population continues to expand; and if enacted, will result in the loss of many, many lives.

I am for this new bill. I have long wished to know how, or at least if, these *bleeps* are fin with mah food.

And to be clear, I'm not "anti-science" at all. I am in fact all for them fin with foods such that it produces a demonstrably safe product with ~ the same nutritional value. But I sure as f would like to know what I putting in my body. In large part because I hear that their fin with my food has not produced a demonstraly safe product with ~ the same nutritional value. At present I couldn't verify my safety if I wanted to.

Except perhaps by shopping at whole foods, which I actually do as much as possible.

If these foods are safe and wholesome, why then are you afraid to tell me that I'm about to eat them? Companies used to btch and moan about not being able to say "fat free" when it was only 99% fat free or something like that, the legislation passed, and the world didn't end. Just tell people what you're giving them ffs.

"to prevent wide-scale starvation that is anticipated as the Earth's population continues to expand; and if enacted, will result in the loss of many, many lives."

You'll excuse me while I shed a tear for those unfed m/billions that we currently don't care enough about to feed anyway. Be clear, there is plenty of food to go around, there is simply no will to deliver it where it is needed due to lack of $$$. That isn't going to change by making more genetically engineered foods.

I used to buy into the genetically modified foods fad something heavy. But it simply hasn't lived up to what it should have been able to deliver.

The people lacking gray matter are not these Democrats introducing this bill. It is the people who have taken the biotech industry at their word without verifying their claims. I am a Republican who is happy that finally someone is paying attention to what is happening to our food supply. In the 15+ years that GMO's have been in our foods autism has increased by 1500%! Hospitalizations due to food allergies have increased by 265%. There is an unprecedented increase in childhood obesity, diabetes, ADHD and asthma!
Every study done that has shown GMO's to be safe has been funded by the biotech industry. Every study done that has been independently funded has shown GMO's to be unsafe- causing cancer and sterility in rats.
I will be grateful to have labeling put on processed foods so I can have the choice in what my family and I consume! Thank you to all who are sponsoring this bill!!

If monsanto and like companies are right, then we have some increases in agra efficiency. And they make some money. OK, so what.

If Monsanto and like companies are wrong, then the liability could be ten thousand times the multi billion dollar value of their collective companies. Privatize the profits, and run when the brown stuff hits the fan. It works. We have to face that fact. It's a business model that works. Limits on liability to $100,000.oo Chump Change!

Just coincidence autism up by 1500% in the corresponding short history of GMO's? Want to roll the dice? NO thanks.

Steven J. Scannell www.environmentalfisherman.com Tripe system.

That is true about the rise in autism and allergies relating to GM foods. There is also severe danger of GM seeds wiping out naturally occurring ones. The public has a right to know what they are eating, and they have a right to know the effects that GM foods can have on human minds and bodies.

i cant find out what happened to any of these. Anywhere I can see that info?

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30